China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014) [Archive]

SWJED

02-12-2006, 11:26 PM

Via Terrorism.com - Unrestricted Warfare (http://www.terrorism.com/documents/TRC-Analysis/unrestricted.pdf). By Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999 - translated by FBIS).

[FBIS Editor's Note: The following selections are taken from "Unrestricted Warfare," a book published in China in February 1999 which proposes tactics for developing countries, in particular China, to compensate for their military inferiority vis-à-vis the United States during a high-tech war. The selections include the table of contents, preface, afterword, and biographical information about the authors printed on the cover.

The book was written by two PLA senior colonels from the younger generation of Chinese military officers and was published by the PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House in Beijing, suggesting that its release was endorsed by at least some elements of the PLA leadership. This impression was reinforced by an interview with Qiao and laudatory review of the book carried by the party youth league's official daily Zhongguo Qingnian Bao on 28 June.

Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means, both military and particularly non-military, to strike at the United States during times of conflict. Hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare are among the methods proposed.

In the Zhongguo Qingnian Bao interview, Qiao was quoted as stating that "the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden." Elaborating on this idea, he asserted that strong countries would not use the same approach against weak countries because "strong countries make the rules while rising ones break them and exploit loopholes . . .The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it." (see FBIS translation of the interview, OW2807114599)
[End FBIS Editor's Note]

Stu-6

02-13-2006, 12:10 AM

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html

About alliance:The US has stated that they would defend Taiwan. Whether or not you want to call it an alliance or not does not matter for the scenario.

Martin

I don’t know; I mean I see your point but to call a threat to Taiwan a threat to the US without a treaty seems a stretch, but you are certainly right in suggesting that war with Taiwan would most like involve the US. Still with such a loose standard could you not say that US talk about defending Taiwan could be seen as a threat to China, as they consider Taiwan to be a part of China?

Martin

02-13-2006, 01:32 AM

Yes, that might be their perspective.

The USA defines her own moral and interests, not China. If the US believes it to be just, then you/we should stick the course. Of course one has to take into account consequences, etc, of saying that, but you get the point.

Martin

Stu-6

02-13-2006, 10:14 PM

Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant. And if it is their perspective that they are not being any more threatening than we are maybe their not really threatening us . . . Just a thought.

Martin

02-14-2006, 04:46 PM

If both parties are threatening each other, that is escalation, not de-escalation.

If from their perspective they feel threatened or just do not like other people voicing their opinion and position in regards to, e.g. (there are other examples), Taiwan, that does not mean that their responses are less effectual. On the contrary, if they can make a case for their people I would say it is more threatening rather than less.

With that said, I am positive about China within the next 50 years, if handled correctly. Though I wouldn't support either containment nor all-out friendliness.

IMHO,
Martin

SWJED

02-16-2006, 08:29 AM

16 Feb. Washington Times - Commercial Photos Show Chinese Nuke Buildup (http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060216-020211-7960r.htm).

Commercial satellite photos made public recently provide a new look at China's nuclear forces and bases images that include the first view of a secret underwater submarine tunnel.

A Pentagon official said the photograph of the tunnel entrance reveals for the first time a key element of China's hidden military buildup. Similar but more detailed intelligence photos of the entrance are highly classified within the U.S. government, the official said.

"The Chinese have a whole network of secret facilities that the U.S. government understands but cannot make public," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "This is the first public revelation of China's secret buildup."

The photographs, taken from 2000 to 2004, show China's Xia-class ballistic missile submarine docked at the Jianggezhuang base, located on the Yellow Sea in Shandong province.

Nuclear warheads for the submarine's 12 JL-1 missiles are thought to be stored inside an underwater tunnel that was photographed about 450 meters to the northwest of the submarine. The high-resolution satellite photo shows a waterway leading to a ground-covered facility.

Other photographs show additional underground military facilities, including the Feidong air base in Anhui province with a runway built into a nearby hill...

Jedburgh

05-23-2006, 10:18 PM

From RAND: Chinese Responses to US Military Transformation and Implications for the DoD (http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG340.pdf)

Chinese strategists have avidly consumed U.S. Department of Defense writings over the past 10 years and have keenly observed the changing nature of U.S. national strategy and military transformation. Commentary by People’s Liberation Army (PLA) experts on Operation Iraqi Freedom suggests that Beijing believes the Pentagon’s efforts at achieving a Revolution in Military Affairs are not just succeeding, but accelerating. Yet the concomitant acceleration of the pace of Chinese military modernization also suggests that the Chinese are not dissuaded by U.S. military prowess, but instead are driven by a range of strategic and military motivations to continue their efforts apace. This report examines potential Chinese responses to U.S. transformation efforts and offers possible U.S. counterresponses. It should be of interest to analysts, warfighters, and policymakers who seek to better understand the modernization trajectory of the Chinese military, and the potential implications of PLA efforts for U.S. military capabilities in a potential China-Taiwan scenario...

SWJED

05-24-2006, 07:22 AM

Released yesterday - DoD's Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People's Republic of China (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html).

The FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1202) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report "…on the current and future military strategy of the People’s Republic of China. The report shall address the current and probable future course of military-technological development on the People’s Liberation Army and the tenets and probable development of Chinese grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy, and of the military organizations and operational concepts, through the next 20 years."

This report, submitted in response to the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act, addresses (1) China’s grand strategy, security strategy, and military strategy; (2) developments in China’s military doctrine and force structure, to include developments in advanced technologies which would enhance China’s military capabilities; and, (3) the security situation in the Taiwan Strait.

The link contains five reports, 2002 through 2006.

I have also placed links to all the MSM buzz about the report on today's SWJ Daily News (http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/news/060524.htm) page

Jedburgh

04-03-2007, 01:07 PM

Well since we are evaluating their threats I think their perspective is the most relevant...
SSI, 2 Apr 07: Chinese Perceptions of Traditional and Nontraditional Security Threats (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB765.pdf)

In order to begin to understand the motivations and decisions of China’s leadership, and in order to behave in a manner such that we can influence them, we must try to understand the world as China does. This research is an attempt to do so by examining the writings and opinions of China’s scholars, journalists, and leaders—its influential elite. It will show that China has a comprehensive concept of national security that includes not only defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity, but continuing its economic and social development and maintaining its international stature....

goesh

04-03-2007, 02:39 PM

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. China has the mind-set and wherewithal to sustain that axiom. They shoot protestors, they don't litigate with them. Recently in an outlying provence, there was some islamic unrest/agitation/suspected AQ activities. They went in and shot a whole slug fo them - end of discussion, end of story. I see no reason why China won't be the sole super power on the planet in about 40 years. They aren't burdened with the accouterments of Democracy for one thing. No flood of illegal immigrants to undermine employment and suck up benefits, no animal rights groups lobbying, no gay rights, no major, self-sustaining entitlement programs, no ACLU and NAACP, no NCAA, no FDA staffed by self-serving doctors, no separation of traditional and modern healing, no pro and anti gun groups, no drug cartels that hype disease for profit, no EPA and HIPPA regulations, no advocates for the mentally handicapped to breed freely, no civilian review boards for the police, no unisex bathrooms, no pet adoptions or pet psychologists and pet day cares and pet grooming industry, no affirmative action and no bra burning, no threats to cut funding for an authorized war simply for reasons of political gain/popularity, no halal and kosher food for their imprisoned miscreants, no costly tax-paid court appeals for convicted criminals, no public outrage and hearings over putting a pair of women's panties on the head of a detainee. They even make the families pay for the cost of the bullet to execute violent offenders. Why wouldn't such a practical people have secret tunnels and lots of nukes, be in outer space , have a dam with 9xs the output of Hoover dam and be implementing a massive road expansion project equal to our interstate system?

tequila

04-03-2007, 02:51 PM

I'm interested in hearing about how pet adoption services weaken the Republic. :p

If you've ever been to China outside one of the big cities, and you actually speak Chinese --- the idea of China has the superpower of the world in 40 years is laughable. China will be enormously lucky, IMO, to have running water in all its urban facilities in 40 years' time.

TROUFION

04-03-2007, 03:28 PM

Goesh, the ability to exterminate opposition and to stifle freedom does not make China great or even a powerhouse. If it did the Soviets would have won the Cold War. Repression works in the short term no the long. The Chinese are good at business true but they are sacrificing a lot to get there. All those organizations and peculiarities of American Society that you listed as bad things, they exist because they can, because the free people of this Country want them too, and to be extreme, a Government crack down of frivilous pet grooming would be even more wasteful than the activity itself. And while you may disagree with the ACLU and NAACP, you have to give them credit for defending the inalienable rights garaunteed by the Constitution. In China you and they would have no choice but to follow the party line. China is heading for some big shake ups, I believe she is like a big fat duck on a pond, you just don't see its legs spinning underwater.

goesh

04-03-2007, 03:38 PM

Good points, Tequila but if I were a senior military man in China, I would be looking at Appalachia, the inner cities and the depressed rural areas of the South and saying the same thing about America. I think after their roads are built, we will see Chinese carrier forces deployed - 2 for the home waters, 2 for foreign waters and one to roam.

tequila

04-03-2007, 03:56 PM

Note that they don't even have one, carrier or even realistic plans for getting one. As comparison, India has 2 already I believe.

Also their Appalachia consists of 75% of their population and 85% of their landmass. A bit of a difference, and one the Chinese are well aware of.

goesh

04-10-2007, 03:45 PM

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/WarehousingChinaDoesItRight.aspx

According to this article (Jim Jubak), China is in the lead with this concept/application. 50 years ago, China was essentially an agrarian economy. Their 3 Gorge Dam when fully functional will produce 9x the output of Hoover Dam and they are soon implimenting some massive road construction projects and they're into outer space and nuclear active.

tequila

04-10-2007, 04:40 PM

In 50 years, I think the industrialization and economic rise of China will be looked back on as the world-historical event of our lifetime - far surpassing the Iraq War or 9/11 or the GWOT - on par with the industrial rise of continental Europe and the United States from 1865-1912.

LawVol

04-10-2007, 05:11 PM

Food for thought on China's rise:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3719

I'm not completely convinced that China is the same threat as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan was at one time. I'm not saying we shouldn't be prepared, I just don't think the sky is falling.

tequila

04-10-2007, 05:27 PM

I agree that they are not a genuine military threat as those other powers were.

goesh

04-11-2007, 12:06 PM

I hope you guys are right but if you were the bosses over there, what in the he** would you do with 1.3+ billion people? Our DNA that makes us tribal pretty much dictates expansion and control of land/resources. I still say they are going to start building carriers and projecting force into the sea lanes and no amount of intelligent, researched reasoning and analysis is going to make me think to the contrary. They remind me of Wal-Mart heavily armed and I'm not yet conditioning my grandchildren to liking chop sooey, but we as a nation better be on our toes and get some things turned around. China doesn't have the immigration problem we have nor the Islamic fundamentalist problem we have. When the latter flares up on them and there are rumblings to that affect already, they have a proven model and recourse of action, Tibet, that they will employ without any compunction and they won't spend a cent on grooming perceptions, images and spin over their actions . World opinion be damned. Blowing up mosques and shooting any and all curfew violators will do wonders in convincing the ummah in any pocket of unrest to follow the Chinese party line. Nor will they ever be burdened with the Entitlement mind-set the West has and the counter productive burden it imposes. An old Circuit Court Judge once told me, " everyone has so much freedom, nobody has any freedom any more". Their criminals don't live better than their victims and that mind set is most conducive to economic, political and military dominance IMO.

Jedburgh

09-05-2007, 01:59 PM

SSI, Sep 07: Right Sizing the People's Liberation Army: Exploring the Contours of China's Military (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB784.pdf)

....This volume—harvesting the fruit of research and discussion from the 2006 PLA Conference—considers the force structure of the PLA and China’s latest training, doctrinal, and procurement efforts across the arms and services of its military forces. Organized on a service-by-service basis, this assessment provides new insights into the drivers behind the size, posture, and arming of the Chinese military. Though China’s military intentions have long been shrouded in a veil of secrecy, the chapters herein draw vital information from a diverse assortment of Chinese and American sources to illuminate these hidden contours, offering perspectives and conclusions with far-reaching implications for policymakers and defense leaders in the United States and worldwide.

One key theme emerging from this volume is that, as far as modernization is concerned, the PLA is by no means monolithic. A service-by-service analysis reveals that while doctrines may be aligned under the rubric of a broad national military strategy, some service programs have larger handicaps—that is, are further behind national requirements—than others. In these instances, “surprise” modernization programs may be likely to emerge.

A second critical theme, and one that cuts across all service programs, is the growing importance of the human dimensions of the PLA. As modernization continues and systems become more complex, the human elements—education, training, personnel management, etc.—will be increasingly critical to the development of the armed forces. The might of a military, after all, is only as strong as the people comprising it and the strategies they undertake....
Complete 588 page pdf report at the link.

.....or order a hard copy here (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=784).

Jedburgh

09-14-2007, 01:56 PM

Guardian Unlimited, 14 Sep 07: Demobilized Soldiers Riot in China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6921230,00.html)

Demobilized soldiers rioted at a retraining center in northeastern China overnight, the latest in a series of apparently coordinated protests against living conditions, a teacher and a human rights monitoring group said Friday.

About 1,000 ex-soldiers began smashing up classrooms and dormitories at the Qiqihar Railway Institute late Thursday night using beer bottles, the Hong Kong-based Information Center for Human Rights and Democracy said....

....The violence comes just over one week after about 2,000 demobilized Chinese soldiers rioted at training centers in at least three cities (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1660997,00.html).

The reported protests, which authorities refused to confirm, were notable for their level of coordination, something not seen on a nationwide scale since the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Beijing and several other cities.....

JeffC

11-10-2007, 07:17 PM

I don't know how many of the posters here subscribe to John McCreary's NightWatch (http://www.afcea.org/mission/intel/resource.asp#nw) newsletter, but as a free resource I find its contents preferable to most of the more mainstream outlets. Here's the relevant bit:

China-Central Asia: Yesterday the Ministry of Foreign Affairs summarized the results of Premier Wen Jiabao's swing through central Asia and Russia between 2 and 6 November. Wen paid official visits to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Russia; attended the sixth meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tashkent; and led the Chinese delegation to the 12th China-Russia Prime Ministers’ regular meeting, where he attended the closing ceremony for the “China Year “in Moscow.

It is no accident that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization members were the first to be visited after the 17th National Congress approved the latest leadership lineup. China’s turn to the countries in the Asian landmass is historic and strategic because these are the barbarian lands in antiquity and more recently they were hostile as members of the Soviet Union. After years of meetings that achieved little, they are now becoming the centerpiece of a non-western strategic economic center. High oil and natural gas prices are reshaping trade and development patterns faster.

The level of interaction seems to be gathering momentum as patterns of trade shift. For example, in Uzbekistan, China promised to buy more cotton, as part of the ten cooperation agreements signed last week in Tashkent. To ensure the cotton reaches China, China has agreed to accelerate transit road construction across Kyrgyzstan. China also intends to continue to expand the railroads that will link to the Chinese system. The Chinese quest for resources is accelerating the development of the continent.

Older maps show China’s railroad west of Urumqi ending at the Chinese border so that invaders from the Soviet Union could not use it. Now it is a 32 hour train trip from Urumqi to Almaty, Kazakhstan and costs $63. Many readers will not know there are two rail systems from Moscow to the Far East: the well-known Trans-Siberian Railway and the newer Silk Road route that links all the central Asian states and terminates in Beijing.

As a visual aid, McCreary includes a map displaying the growth of the two railroad lines, and when you add that to the existing transportation hubs that tie into Moscow, you can clearly see the potential for a game-changing shift of power from the Western hemisphere to the Far East, driven by the rapid technological development of a nation that contains 20% of the world's population.

JeffC

11-19-2007, 08:47 PM

I just wrote an analysis entitled "Divine Manipulation of the Threads: China's Certain Rise to World Dominance in the 21st Century" that's available for download at IntelFusion (http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2007/11/analysis-china.html). I'd love to hear any comments on it.

Stan

11-19-2007, 09:02 PM

Hey Jeff !

I just wrote an analysis entitled "Divine Manipulation of the Threads: China's Certain Rise to World Dominance in the 21st Century" that's available for download at IntelFusion (http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2007/11/analysis-china.html). I'd love to hear any comments on it.

Well Done...An excellent read !

I've been asked this boring question a gazillion times as a Harley driver: Why did/does China hold the USA's most-favored-nation trade status ? What in creation was Bill thinking about in 94 :confused:

Great job, Stan

JeffC

11-19-2007, 09:38 PM

Hey Jeff !

Well Done...An excellent read !

I've been asked this boring question a gazillion times as a Harley driver: Why did/does China hold the USA's most-favored-nation trade status ? What in creation was Bill thinking about in 94 :confused:

Great job, Stan

Thanks, Stan. I appreciate it.

Regarding MFN status, it was a vastly different China back in '94. I doubt if anyone could have predicted the way things shifted in only 10 years. And today, the answer for MFN continuing is simple. They own a huge portion of our debt. If we squeeze, they squeeze harder. And American consumers have a low pain tolerance, if you know what I mean.

bismark17

11-20-2007, 08:08 PM

Rob Thornton

11-20-2007, 08:19 PM

JeffC

11-20-2007, 09:04 PM

Good article! I never did verify this but read on slashdot how one of their subs recently popped up close to one of our carrier groups without being spotted. It wouldn't surprise me with how the U.S. has been neglecting funding in it's ASW capabilities.

I read that it surfaced really REALLY close. Kinda like, tag, you're it. Which, if memory serves, is the kind of game that PLAAF pilots like to play with U.S. spy planes near the Chinese border.

JeffC

11-20-2007, 09:13 PM

Jeff,
First - my thanks and congratulations for it being 5 pages of concise witting - the stuff coming out of the think tanks always seems to be at least 100 pages. Second - thanks for a very thought provoking piece - lots of questions out there like - Do we work with, or against Chinese goal - and how do they view the same question with regards to us? I suspect there is allot of grey depending on who, when and where you are asking.
Best regards, Rob

Thanks, Rob. I think concise writing is a lost art. And unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be one that very many people want to resurrect, at least not in my experience.

Regarding some of the questions that you mentioned, my view is that the U.S. should learn a few lessons from what the Chinese have done, particularly in the Education component. I'd like to see a nation-wide reinvigoration around teaching science and math, and requiring students and teachers to hit basic competency goals or the student doesn't graduate, and the teacher's performance is reviewed with possible repercussions.

hypo

11-23-2007, 01:02 AM

SWJED

11-23-2007, 01:13 AM

... others jump in - hypo, your comments are appreciated when commenting on a Council member's post, they are, but in such cases (first time poster) we always ask for the new member to introduce himself here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1441). Thanks - House Rules.

selil

11-23-2007, 02:37 AM

Jeff,
First - my thanks and congratulations for it being 5 pages of concise witting - the stuff coming out of the think tanks always seems to be at least 100 pages.

The art of concise writing is why I post on my blog and web forums. It helps me practice though I'm still long winded. It seems my academic writing has been growing in length as I try and handle every little nuance and objection I think somebody will come up with.

JeffC

11-23-2007, 04:27 AM

I found this 5 page essay to be very simplistic since it came to a certain conclusion (China's superpower status) after only reviewing three unrelated aspects of the entire PRC society (special ops emulation, academic exchanges, and cyber intrusion).

I felt that you gleamed only the very best aspects of the PRC (such as accumulation of US treasury bonds) while completely ignoring any of the massive challenges that they face (such as environmental degradation, widening wealth gap, brain drain, political unrest, government corruption, intellectual property rights, freedom of the press ect.)

You also made a reference to the 2008 Olympics in your conclusion which you had not referred to anywhere else in your analysis. You gave no evidence to back up your opinion that this was going to be the tipping point for superpower status.

A more convincing argument could be made if you had attempted to link the 3 aspects together somehow and provide more strategic depth (what does it mean for us?) to your analysis rather than repeating an event that already happened. For example, by not explaining the context behind the Chinese cyber intrusion (it was into an unclassified military network), you weaken your argument by omitting key facts.

Unfortunately, when analyzing total power of a state, you must analyze all aspects of that state and its civil/military society. I felt your analysis lacked comprehensiveness and also depth/context to make such a sweeping generalization.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this, since, from what you've written, you don't seem to have actually read my paper. In your opening paragraph, for example, you refer to the cyber espionage problem that I mention in my introduction as one of my 3 components supporting my argument, when, in fact, Cyber Espionage wasn't one of my 3 primary components at all.

You then call out only one aspect of my Military component (Chinese Special Forces) as if it was the only example that I used in my Military section. It wasn't. I also mentioned (via Cozad's testimony) C4ISR, Space and Counter-Space, IO, Electronic warfare, and nuclear weapon delivery systems (ICBMs).

You mis-identified my third component "Educational Development" as simply "academic exchanges", which is incorrect. "Academic exchanges" sounds like some kind of transfer student program.

Finally, you completely failed to identify my second component "Economic Development". I'm not sure how you managed to miss 25% of my essay, but clearly you did.

So, "hypo", since I've demonstrated that your criticism is built upon a pretty serious mis-reading of my analysis (assuming that you actually read it at all), responding to the rest of your post would be redundant. I will, however, offer this. Whether an analysis is 5 pages or 100 pages, it's useless if it isn't understood by the reader. That's why I included about 20 cites in those 5 pages. Just in case a reader, like yourself, was looking for a more thorough understanding of what I was covering.

Stan

11-23-2007, 08:02 AM

I'm not really sure how to respond to this...

I'll just borrow one of your quotes (http://www.online-literature.com/suntzu/artofwar/19/) real quick for my summation ;)

12. Having DOOMED SPIES, doing certain things openly for
purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and
report them to the enemy.

slapout9

11-23-2007, 03:32 PM

JeffC

11-23-2007, 06:13 PM

Hi JeffC, how about trying this. I learned this at the SMART wars workshop.

Simple country analysis:
1-system assets
2-system attitude
3-system technology state
4-system scope
5-system obstacles
6-system momentum

Do one for China and do one for the US and show who is winning or losing.

That's an interesting application of Systems Analysis, but it would only show where the two nations stand today, and we already know the answer to that. In order to see if the U.S. will continue to be a Superpower in the future, you would need to look at trends, both in the U.S. and in China, and based on those trends, project an outcome at some point in the future.

Ron Humphrey

11-25-2007, 01:07 AM

I would have to heartily agree that this was a well done paper, packed with good information and kept short sweet and to the point.

That being said as to where the future lies I find myself reviewing one main thought process.

China is adept at taking what works and doesn't work for others and learning from it. They have very little compunction about anything from ethical, moral, or social restriction in research, re-engineering, medical practice, etc unless it finds itself in conflict with the desires of the leadership.

They have seen what can happen to a society completely dependant on socialist or communist principles alone and have not failed to adjust some of their eco policies in this regard.

They have large enough populace that they can contain any number of types of societies within their borders while still maintaining the overwhelming communist base. And further more they are part and parcel one of the most planned out societies in history.

Any actions, reactions, planning or hope to understand their path must:

1- Take nothing for granted as possible or not

2- Expect to see any known weaknesses of democratic society well exploited

3- Expect to see economy of scales largely used for political and geographic goals

4- expect a willingness to work with any country who may help to create such instabilities as would be beneficial to said future

5- Always expect that they see what you see

Just somewhat of a part-time preoccupation of mine

JeffC

11-25-2007, 07:32 AM

I would have to heartily agree that this was a well done paper, packed with good information and kept short sweet and to the point.

Thanks!

5- Always expect that they see what you see

I'll add one more to your list. Remember that no one sees everything, so anticipate what you don't know (easier said then done, of course).

Global Scout

11-25-2007, 04:59 PM

JeffC,

While I enjoyed the paper, I thought it was inconclusive and I am not exactly sure what your point was. For example, China, and several other countries, are modernizing their military, and of course the U.S. Special Operations is seen as especially effective, so they'll adapt that model where it fits. As for UAVs, not only is China adapting them, so is Hezbollah, and I'm sure several other countries. Economic competition? France, Russia, UK, and a slew of others. My point is you could have selected a number of countries and have basically written the same paper with minor changes. I'm not arguing with your facts, but with your slant. China may be a looming menance to our national security, but this paper was not convincing. I think a serious counter argument could be made that China is very fragile on a number of levels, militarily, politically, and economically. I still enjoyed the paper though, thanks.

JeffC

11-25-2007, 07:32 PM

JeffC,

Hi Global Scout

[QUOTE] While I enjoyed the paper, I thought it was inconclusive and I am not exactly sure what your point was.

My primary point was that China will most likely become the world's next Superpower, while my secondary point was that the U.S. should pay attention to its own fragilities in that regard (partricularly it's growing reliance on foreign nation's owning our debt, and our nation's declining Science and Math graduates).

For example, China, and several other countries, are modernizing their military, and of course the U.S. Special Operations is seen as especially effective, so they'll adapt that model where it fits.

The underlying point for my example of China's modeling of U.S. Special Operations Command techniques is that China is leveraging what we do best as a means of rapid development for their own nation's advancement. They follow that method across the board: technology, education, military, consumer goods.

My point is you could have selected a number of countries and have basically written the same paper with minor changes.

I don't believe that to be the case. China's in a unique position due to it's enormous population with its undeniable attraction as consumers for global companies, the size of its military, it's nuclear capability, it's scientific community, and the fact that it currently holds almost US$1.5 Trillion in foreign debt (and that's expected to continue to rise). None of those factors can be duplicated by any other nation except possibly India, and that to a much lesser extent.

I'm not arguing with your facts, but with your slant. China may be a looming menance to our national security, but this paper was not convincing. I think a serious counter argument could be made that China is very fragile on a number of levels, militarily, politically, and economically.

That's fair, and accurate. China isn't a Superpower yet, and it does face serious problems, although I don't believe that any of them are insurmountable.

My main concern with some of the skeptics that I've read regarding China is that they seem to think that acknowledging China's rise to power is somehow un-patriotic. If history teaches us anything about the rise and fall of nations, it's that a great nation (like the U.S.) takes its position for granted at its peril. In my opinion, in order for the U.S. to remain a great nation, it needs to use clear vision in viewing both its own troubles (and fixing them) and its competitors' strengths. I don't see that happening as often as it should.

I still enjoyed the paper though, thanks.

My pleasure.

Watcher In The Middle

12-31-2007, 04:38 AM

The great fall of China - Revised GDP calculations show that Beijing isn't the giant we thought it was
By Walter Russell Mead; December 30, 2007

The most important story to come out of Washington recently had nothing to do with the endless presidential campaign. And although the media largely ignored it, the story changes the world.

The story's unlikely source was the staid World Bank, which published updated statistics on the economic output of 146 countries. China's economy, said the bank, is smaller than it thought.

About 40% smaller.

China, it turns out, isn't a $10-trillion economy on the brink of catching up with the United States. It is a $6-trillion economy, less than half our size. For the foreseeable future, China will have far less money to spend on its military and will face much deeper social and economic problems at home than experts previously believed.

What happened to $4 trillion in Chinese gross domestic product?

Statistics. When economists calculate a country's gross domestic product, they add up the prices of the goods and services its economy produces and get a total -- in dollars for the United States, euros for such countries as Germany and France and yuan for China. To compare countries' GDP, they typically convert each country's product into dollars.

The simplest way to do this is to use exchange rates. In 2006, the World Bank calculated that China produced 21 trillion yuan worth of goods and services. Using the market exchange rate of 7.8 yuan to the dollar, the bank pegged China's GDP at $2.7 trillion.

That number is too low. For one thing, like many countries, China artificially manipulates the value of its currency. For another, many goods in less developed economies such as China and Mexico are much cheaper than they are in countries such as the United States.

To take these factors into account, economists compare prices from one economy to another and compute an adjusted GDP figure based on "purchasing-power parity." The idea is that a country's GDP adjusted for purchasing-power parity provides a more realistic measure of relative economic strength and of living standards than the unadjusted GDP numbers.

Unfortunately, comparing hundreds and even thousands of prices in almost 150 economies all over the world is a difficult thing to do. Concerned that its purchasing-power-parity numbers were out of whack, the World Bank went back to the drawing board and, with help from such countries as India and China, reviewed the data behind its GDP adjustments.

It learned that there is less difference between China's domestic prices and those in such countries as the United States than previously thought. So the new purchasing-power-parity adjustment is smaller than the old one -- and $4 trillion in Chinese GDP melts into air.

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-mead30dec30,0,1035099.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary)

As the article (Editorial) points out, this has serious implications for a whole host of players. If the numbers are correct, there's been a whole lot of economic assumptions being made that really aren't justifiable, and could easily come back to haunt the entities making those decisions.

JeffC

12-31-2007, 05:36 AM

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-mead30dec30,0,1035099.story?coll=la-sunday-commentary)

As the article (Editorial) points out, this has serious implications for a whole host of players. If the numbers are correct, there's been a whole lot of economic assumptions being made that really aren't justifiable, and could easily come back to haunt the entities making those decisions.

I disagree. Does anyone doubt that China will get there? No. So what if it's not there now. It doesn't change the fundamentals. 1.6 Billion people. Some of the best math and science minds in the world, thanks to their emphasis on science and math in education. And the second largest holder of U.S. debt in the world, after Japan. None of that has changed.

Watcher In The Middle

01-03-2008, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by JeffC:

I disagree. Does anyone doubt that China will get there? No. So what if it's not there now. It doesn't change the fundamentals. 1.6 Billion people. Some of the best math and science minds in the world, thanks to their emphasis on science and math in education. And the second largest holder of U.S. debt in the world, after Japan. None of that has changed.

Not sure I'd bite on that one, because making up $4 trillion isn't pocket change. You are talking about China duplicating what looks to be at least several (3-4 years, possibly more) of continuous growth at existing levels, and the export numbers (at least anecdotial for the quarter ending September, 2007) just weren't there.

And there's a whole lot of other issues - China is experiencing all the negative environmental impacts of industrialization, and honestly, the water pollution and air pollution issues they are facing are just staggering (makes pollution issues in the old Soviet Union pale in comparison). The national government is having huge fights (ongoing, and honestly, they are being ignored) with both provincial and municipal governments who are going "full speed ahead" over expansion, regardless of the pollution issues. As a single example, look at the very latest reporting on the environmental issues coming home to roost on China's Yangtze River Three Gorges Project. They are now talking about having to literally relocate at least an additional 750,000 people from around the already completed project, because of "unanticipated" environmental issues. And they're not sure that doing that is going to solve the environmental issues.

Also, lets remember that China has serious natural resource issues, and from here on out, everything's going to be more expensive. Plus China has a number of outstanding subsidy issues (a Gal. of regular unleaded gas in China was priced = to approx. $2.44 after government subsidies). They just increased the retail gas costs by 10%, and there were a whole lot of problems (demonstrations, etc.). They are truly walking the tightrope without a net.

China has a whole lot of issues, and those issues will certainly affect the fundamentals. And I always remember what a good friend told me: "Ain't no such thing as a sure thing".:wry:

William F. Owen

01-03-2008, 08:48 AM

tequila

01-03-2008, 09:15 AM

Can you detail the cultural limitations that you are talking about? That descriptor is pretty vague.

William F. Owen

01-03-2008, 10:09 AM

Can you detail the cultural limitations that you are talking about? That descriptor is pretty vague.

I'd equate it to those limitations to those that were very apparent in Soviet Russia. Talk star wars, but when push comes to shove, act caveman.

In the same way that I never did rate the Soviet Army in any way, except for mass, I don't see anything in the PLA that makes me think they are any better. Modernisation will get them to about where we were in the late 1980's. I don't see training and leadership as anywhere near what most NATO armies have.

Ron Humphrey

01-03-2008, 05:14 PM

I'd equate it to those limitations to those that were very apparent in Soviet Russia. Talk star wars, but when push comes to shove, act caveman.

In the same way that I never did rate the Soviet Army in any way, except for mass, I don't see anything in the PLA that makes me think they are any better. Modernisation will get them to about where we were in the late 1980's. I don't see training and leadership as anywhere near what most NATO armies have.

I would tend to agree with you about the quality of the forces as a whole.
When you look at training good leaders (NCO's, Officers, Specialization of branches) they will always have problems with any real accomplishment in these areas as long as the cultural tendencies keep class, position, etc ahead of ingenuity, and capability of an individual.

Just as in any company you may train and have excellent skillsets among your workforce but hierachial thinking will keep you from taking advantages almost every time.

Not to mention throwing into the mix the efforts to play both sides of the table, (socialism / Capitalism) at the same time really does bring it's own set of challenges.

Norfolk

01-03-2008, 05:29 PM

Right Sizing the People's Liberation Army: Exploring the Contours of China's Military (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=784) Edited by Roy Kamphausen and Andrew Scobell

-See particularly Chapter 7 by Dennis Blasko.

"PLA Doctrine on Securing Energy Resources in Central Asia (http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2900.html)" by Martin Andrew

-Description of the reorganization of some Group Armies into pseudo-Soviet-style Operational Manoeuvre Groups.

The PLA provides only two months' basic training after each yearly induction in November. After that, it's OJT; recruits, who serve for only two years, are considered "trained" six months after their induction. Each Battalion is on a 9-10 month annual training cycle, breaking for 2-3 months starting in November each year to provide Basic Training for recruits and the NCO Course and Basic Officer Training. And some people think our 12-month training cycle is bad (it is, but not as bad as the PLA's). Many officers recruited from University now only receive 2 or 3 months basic training before receiving OJT in their Battalions, although 3/4 of these are technical specialists; most Combat Arms officers still receive a year's training. NCOs, all of whom are former recruits selected to remain in the PLA after their 2-year obligation, perform nearly all technical tasks.

There is more initiative allowed than in the Russian Army, and training is often of rather better quality. In the past, the PLA relied on rigid obedience to orders from Platoon to Battalion because of a lack of radios, but that is now changed; the Squad level has normally featured a certain allowance for initiative. But Combined-Arms operations at Unit level still seem to be somewhat shaky in areas. Infantry weapons-handling and battlecraft (except in certain elite units) appears more akin to that of the US Army circa very early 1980's, in both content and performance.

JJackson

01-03-2008, 07:33 PM

Now I did A level maths and chemistry - a very long time ago - but I loved this Chinese test for students considering a science based course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6589301.stm

How did you do? If you have kids thinking of University would they do?

JeffC

01-03-2008, 08:06 PM

I wouldn't want to say China will never be a problem or peer competitor, but as I just don't get how China will ever obtain any military level of competence.

Why does everyone assume that these guys could ever perform?

Their are significant cultural limitations to Chinas ability to effectively project military power in a way that we understand. On what evidence do we all keep assuming that they have the capacity to improve?

Wow, that's quite an opinion. I note that you didn't provide much supporting information to it in response to Tequila's request. Perhaps you'll be more forthcoming in future posts. In the meantime, here are a few reasons why China should be regarded as a future military threat.

1. In most of it's 4,000 + year history, it has dominated Asia as a military and cultural power.

2. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is the world's oldest manual of military strategy, and his principles are still applied with success today.

3. Chinese martial arts are the origin of all Asian martial fighting forms, and have influenced those of the rest of the world, including our own.

4. The U.S. has no existing defense for implementation of an Unrestricted Warfare attack, as proposed by two Chinese Colonels in 1998, and which is being implemented in China's current cyberwarfare strategy.

5. "China continues to invest heavily in the modernization of its military, particularly in strategic weapons and capabilities to support power projection and access denial operations." Read the PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MR. RICHARD P. LAWLESS (http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2007bios/07_02_1_2bios/lawless_richard.php) DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN & PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007

Ron Humphrey

01-03-2008, 08:37 PM

that China is or would be a more than effective foe.

I think the big thing I look to is the fact that most of how their society works always seemed to be based in order vs chaos. Structure vs compromise.

All or nothing in unrestricted warfare while being a very real concern doesn't really seem to be as likely as some other forms of movement from them.

Chaos tends to stem from unrestricted conflict, and isn't that somewhat counter to their philosophical and social constructs.

To look at them in the same way as say a Hitlers Germany or Soviet union
doesn't seem to be a good comparison
(Wouldn't they be the first ones to look to get maximum effect from least effort being more patient than others.) SOFT Power

This will keep them on a path of growth but their not the only ones growing and their close neighbors are on schedule to out populate them within ten years or so plus I think have even more specialization in the maths and science areas.

Just asking these are some of what my assumptions or limited knowledge is in this regard. Please disabuse me of those which are incorrect or mistaken. :confused:

JeffC

01-03-2008, 09:29 PM

that China is or would be a more than effective foe.

I think the big thing I look to is the fact that most of how their society works always seemed to be based in order vs chaos. Structure vs compromise.

I think that even experts on the subject would disagree about how the evolution of Chinese government is progressing. It's certainly still a Communist regime, but not in the way that it was under Mao. If anything, I think we're observing something completely different from what China has been in the past, thanks to the success of capitalism in Hong Kong and Shanghai. I think the government is trying to find ways to embrace it's economic success with a totalitarian style of government, and will wind up with some kind of hybrid. What this conveys to me is that we pigeon-hole China to our detriment, and should try to avoid applying old dualistic concepts in our effort to understand today's People's Republic.

All or nothing in unrestricted warfare while being a very real concern doesn't really seem to be as likely as some other forms of movement from them.

UW takes a holistic approach, known in contemporary terms as a systems approach, to warfare. In this way, their educational priorities are a part of UW. Corporate espionage is a part. WMD development is a part. Energy alliances is a part. And so on. Mechanistic theory, which the West has operated on for the past 150 years, breaks things down into separate components. Systems theory looks at how each part interacts and connects with the whole. That's what UW does as well.

Chaos tends to stem from unrestricted conflict, and isn't that somewhat counter to their philosophical and social constructs.

Chaos to a westerner may not be viewed as chaotic to someone well-read in the Tao, or in Zen Buddhism. It's a different way of perceiving reality then Westerners are used to.

To look at them in the same way as say a Hitlers Germany or Soviet union
doesn't seem to be a good comparison

I agree, and that reminds me of Max Boot's flawed advice on exporting Democracy to the Middle East from the barrel of a gun. "We did it in Germany and Japan. Why not Iraq and Iran?"

This will keep them on a path of growth but their not the only ones growing and their close neighbors are on schedule to out populate them within ten years or so plus I think have even more specialization in the maths and science areas.

Speaking as someone whose employer has engineers from both countries, and operations in both countries, China is ahead of India in technology-based R&D. That's just my observation, not the result of an independent study.

But more importantly, China is aggressively pursuing building strategic relationships with lots of other countries, including India. It's not operating in a vacuum.

William F. Owen

01-04-2008, 09:04 AM

In the meantime, here are a few reasons why China should be regarded as a future military threat.

1. In most of it's 4,000 + year history, it has dominated Asia as a military and cultural power.

2. Sun Tzu's The Art of War is the world's oldest manual of military strategy, and his principles are still applied with success today.

3. Chinese martial arts are the origin of all Asian martial fighting forms, and have influenced those of the rest of the world, including our own.

4. The U.S. has no existing defense for implementation of an Unrestricted Warfare attack, as proposed by two Chinese Colonels in 1998, and which is being implemented in China's current cyberwarfare strategy.

5. "China continues to invest heavily in the modernization of its military, particularly in strategic weapons and capabilities to support power projection and access denial operations." Read the PREPARED STATEMENT OF
MR. RICHARD P. LAWLESS (http://www.uscc.gov/bios/2007bios/07_02_1_2bios/lawless_richard.php) DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ASIAN & PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS BEFORE THE U.S.-CHINA ECONOMIC AND SECURITY REVIEW COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007

1. I think Japan managed to dominate Asia, far more than China in recent history. Modern China is a product of an adaptive form of Communism, not it's 4,000 years of culture. They got their asses handed to them on a plate by the Vietnamese in 1979.

2. Sun Tzu's art of War/Strategy is not highly regarded by the Chinese military, at least not the former PLA members I have talked to. Even Mao came unstuck when they tried to export "On Guerilla Warfare" to non-Confucian based cultures.

3. Martial Arts is nothing to do with warfare.

4. The two Chinese Colonels are no better informed than anyone else. It's a typical product of Chinese military thought, that sounds clever, but that probably falls short in performance.

5. So they say. The Chinese military budget is smoke and mirrors of the worst order.

NOW - I am not saying the Chinese are not a threat, but I work in the Far East, I have worked with the Chinese, and they are no more skilled, cunning or clever than we are. They just don't have democracy to hold back ambition, but they are severely constrained by things like status, face and image.

Why would we assume them to be more capable than the Russians?

tequila

01-04-2008, 01:33 PM

I think the "Japanese moment" in Asian history is over. Japan, because of its cultural cohesiveness resulting from its position as a mountainous island, has always been able to embrace massive and radical change more quickly than most other countries. It did it during its rise as a unified state during the Nara period, when it embraced a massive infusion of cultural and governmental innovation from China and Korea, and it did it during the Industrial Revolution. However it cannot compete as a local power against a strong China.

If China in the modern age was going to be held back by things like ancient cultural traits, China could never have accomplished the economic transformation that has occurred over the past 35 years. The changes that have occurred in a single generation have gone directly against so many of the fundamental classical traditions of Chinese history as to constitute a genuine revolution, more so even than in 1948.

Culture matters, but cultures are not fixed constants. They undergo constant change to adapt to the underlying fundamentals of the societies they inhabit, and no more so than when the economic superstructure has changed as radically and completely as it has in China in the past generation. Old assumptions need to be revisited.

JeffC

01-04-2008, 05:53 PM

5. So they say. The Chinese military budget is smoke and mirrors of the worst order.

I was going to spend more time on this, but when I read your above reply to my point of Lawless's report, I decided against it. I'm happy to debate facts, but there's no debating a refusal to consider facts.

tequila

01-04-2008, 06:07 PM

Similar things could be said about the U.S. defense budget, which the government has literally given up on accounting (http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/399475.html)for.

There is enormous waste and fraud in every defense budget - more so when they are swathed in official secrecy. China is hardly an exception. But what is largely not disputed is that China is spending large amounts of money in an attempt to modernize and professionalize its armed forces. While this is hardly the easiest thing to do in the world, China has built in the last thirty years some of the world's most advanced industrial processes and efficient factories. They do not compete only in low-rent textiles and assembled goods but also in consumer electronics, automobile and machine parts, steel, computers, etc. etc.

If one believed that some sort of cultural model barring China from modernization and professional competence was an accurate descriptor, one would have to answer how it is possible for China to build a world-competitive industrial economy across the panoply of manufacturing and services but yet prove incapable of creating a competent military force.

tequila

01-10-2008, 12:06 PM

Good basic primer (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200801/fallows-chinese-dollars)on the China/U.S. dollar relationship, from James Fallows in The Atlantic.

Jedburgh

02-15-2008, 02:10 PM

China Brief, 14 Feb 08: Soldier Scholars: Military Education as an Instrument of China's Strategic Power (http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373977)

....There is another element of China’s military transformation that tends to receive much less attention: professional military education (PME). Over the last three decades, China has undertaken significant efforts to enhance the quality of its military education system (http://www.jamestown.org/china_brief/article.php?articleid=2373281). The expansion of non-commissioned officer (NCO) education over the last decade within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) illuminates an important—yet understudied—element of China’s broader military modernization efforts. Washington policymakers should take note of Beijing’s investments in military education as they may yield key insights into Chinese military strategy as well as its grand strategy.....

Norfolk

03-04-2008, 01:09 AM

Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2008 (http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf), Office of the Secretary of Defense:

From the Executive Summary -

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is pursuing comprehensive transformation from a mass army designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning shortduration, high intensity conflicts along its periphery against high-tech adversaries – an approach that China refers to as preparing for “local wars under conditions of informatization.” China’s ability to sustain military power at a distance remains limited but, as noted in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, it “has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages.”

China’s near-term focus on preparing for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait, including the possibility of U.S. intervention, is an important driver of its modernization. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions and strategic thinking suggests Beijing is also developing capabilities for use in other contingencies, such as conflict over resources or disputed territories.

The pace and scope of China’s military transformation have increased in recent years, fueled by acquisition of advanced foreign weapons, continued high rates of investment in its domestic defense and science and technology industries, and far reaching organizational and doctrinal reforms of the armed forces. China’s expanding and improving military capabilities are changing East Asian military balances; improvements in China’s strategic capabilities have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region.

and:

The international community has limited knowledge of the motivations, decision-making, and key capabilities supporting China’s military modernization. China’s leaders have yet to explain in detail the purposes and objectives of the PLA’s modernizing military capabilities. For example, China continues to promulgate incomplete defense expenditure figures, and engage in actions that appear inconsistent with its declaratory policies. The lack of transparency in China’s military and security affairs poses risks to stability by increasing the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculation. This situation will naturally and understandably lead to hedging against the unknown.

This is a large file, some 29.6 MB. Hat tip to Panzerkom at SDF (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/79013-post1.html).

AdamG

05-01-2008, 08:07 PM

Some good photos at:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/1917167/Chinese-build-secret-nuclear-submarine-base.html

China has secretly built a major underground nuclear submarine base that could threaten Asian countries and challenge American power in the region, it can be disclosed.

Ken White

05-01-2008, 08:37 PM

Secret because they just found out about it? Threaten? How so, how does a base threaten? Seems like the Subs could but I'm unsure how a base does...

franksforum

05-16-2008, 03:40 PM

Ron Humphrey

05-16-2008, 04:49 PM

From the RSIS site in Singapore:

"Confronted with the overwhelming superiority of the US Navy, China has embarked on an asymmetric naval strategy to mitigate American naval power. Relying heavily on submarines, cruise and ballistic missiles and modern fast attack craft, the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is fast developing a powerful sea denial capability."

Full text of the commentary is available at the below link:

http://www.ntu.edu.sg/rsis/publications/Perspective/RSIS0572008.pdf

Good thing nobody's planning on invading the sovereign space of China, and of course they only want this capability for defensive and not expeditionary purposes.

At least that's what you hear all the time. Call me silly but I still think something's funny and I haven't figured out what the joke is yet.

Norfolk

05-16-2008, 09:58 PM

Call me silly but I still think something's funny and I haven't figured out what the joke is yet.

Ron, take it from me that the only way it'll end up seeming funny is after the water torture is over.:wry:

Adam L

05-17-2008, 12:56 AM

Good thing nobody's planning on invading the sovereign space of China, and of course they only want this capability for defensive and not expeditionary purposes.

At least that's what you hear all the time. Call me silly but I still think something's funny and I haven't figured out what the joke is yet.

Ron, take it from me that the only way it'll end up seeming funny is after the water torture is over.:wry:

It's nice to know I'm not alone in that thought.

Adam L

Norfolk

07-06-2008, 10:22 PM

"New Facility Offers Carrier Building Capability (http://www.sinodefence.com/research/new-facility-carrier-building/default.asp)", at Chinese Defence Today.

Even comes with a pic of a model of the new Changxing Shipyard with an aircraft carrier in drydock.;)

Basically, the article is describing how the relocation of the original (and historic) Jiangnan Shipyard in central Shanghai to Changxing Island at the mouth of the Yangtze River will not only result in an increase in shipbuilding capacity to some 12 million dwt by 2015 (some 50% of China's anticipated total capacity), but will also provide the facilities to construct one or two new 50-60,000 ton CVs. Not quite news, but rather a progress report.

Watcher In The Middle

07-08-2008, 01:07 AM

the 'China Miracle' comes to an abrupt halt:

Oil price shock means China is at risk of blowing up
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Last Updated: 10:54am BST 07/07/2008

The great oil shock of 2008 is bad enough for us. It poses a mortal threat to the whole economic strategy of emerging Asia.

The manufacturing revolution of China and her satellites has been built on cheap transport over the past decade. At a stroke, the trade model looks obsolete.

No surprise that Shanghai's bourse is down 56pc since October, one of the world's most spectacular bear markets in half a century.

Asia's intra-trade model is a Ricardian network where goods are shipped in a criss-cross pattern to exploit comparative advantage. Profit margins are wafer-thin.

Products are sent to China for final assembly, then shipped again to Western markets. The snag is obvious. The cost of a 40ft container from Shanghai to Rotterdam has risen threefold since the price of oil exploded.

Link to Article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/07/ccview107.xml)

The consequences to this would be unbelievable. That "$1.8 trillion" will melt away like an early May snowstorm if the "China Miracle" comes to a abrupt end.

This is a story to pay attention to, because it's really happening around the edges. The impacts of something like this are staggering, and not just to China/SE Asia.

Van

07-08-2008, 07:33 PM

Chinese power projection is problematic. As far as I can figure out, the only use for Chinese submarines is to quietly dispose of sailors they're not fond of. Aircraft carriers are little better, even when they've had the Varyag tied up at Dalian (see Google Earth) for a case study/template. However, if the objective is someplace they can walk, I'd be worried.

Based on China's actions, rather than U.S. assessments or Chinese statements, the economic hegemony appears to be the goal. Even the military region commanders in China seem to spend more time with diplomacy than combat training (except for the MR with their equivalent of NTC, but that is one out of seven, and that MR does not have any external border).

I'm not just being contrarian, nor am I a starry-eyed believer in the nobility of the goals of China. U.S. analysts have been consistently guilty of mirror-imaging in assessments of China and the result has been an effort to paint China as a direct threat rather than a very subtle and patient one. More to the point, we consistantly discuss China as an expansionist power rather than the Middle Kingdom, the center that expects respect to be paid and desires influence rather direct control.

Rex Brynen

07-27-2008, 12:54 AM

An interesting counter-argument on China's rise to superpower status (and a "near-peer" challenger):

A Long Wait at the Gate to Greatness (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502255.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
By John Pomfret
Washington Post
Sunday, July 27, 2008; Page B01

Nikita Khrushchev said the Soviet Union would bury us, but these days, everybody seems to think that China is the one wielding the shovel. The People's Republic is on the march -- economically, militarily, even ideologically. Economists expect its GDP to surpass America's by 2025; its submarine fleet is reportedly growing five times faster than Washington's; even its capitalist authoritarianism is called a real alternative to the West's liberal democracy. China, the drumbeat goes, is poised to become the 800-pound gorilla of the international system, ready to dominate the 21st century the way the United States dominated the 20th.

Except that it's not.

Ever since I returned to the United States in 2004 from my last posting to China, as this newspaper's Beijing bureau chief, I've been struck by the breathless way we talk about that country. So often, our perceptions of the place have more to do with how we look at ourselves than with what's actually happening over there. Worried about the U.S. education system? China's becomes a model. Fretting about our military readiness? China's missiles pose a threat. Concerned about slipping U.S. global influence? China seems ready to take our place.

But is China really going to be another superpower? I doubt it.

Ken White

07-27-2008, 01:19 AM

and a local China scholar -- and that's just two of whom I happen to be aware. With about six years in the Orient to bounce against my two in the ME, I'm pretty well convinced that in the ME, things are never as they seem while in the Orient, they are exactly as they seem.

All an excessively lengthy way of saying I think he's right...:cool:

Fuchs

07-27-2008, 04:08 AM

Watcher In The Middle

08-04-2008, 12:39 AM

is that we (the "West") look at China through Western eyes, and concepts. That's our filter, it what we've grown up with, so it's understandable. Problem is, we miss stuff as a result. Here's a great example of something missed:

China's `Underground' Loans Top $1.5 Trillion, Wen Wei Po Says
By Patricia Kuo

Aug. 3 (Bloomberg) -- So-called ``underground'' lending in China exceeds 10 trillion yuan ($1.5 trillion), the Wen Wei Po newspaper reported, citing lenders and market watchers it didn't identify.

Funding made available by unauthorized lenders including pawn shops and auction firms is thriving as banks tighten credit after a series of interest rate and reserve ratio increases, the Chinese-language newspaper said. Some such loans carry interest rates higher than 5 percent a month, it said.

LInk to the Article (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601089&sid=aitaXMxnx.BM&refer=china)

Now, this is "off-the-books" lending that's not part of any official statistics, and in modern Western society, literally has no counterpart (Well, maybe loan sharking). But imagine $1.5 trillion dollars annually worth of loan sharking.:eek:

Or maybe a different, but more realistic comparison. How about the Chinese equivalent of sub-prime real estate mortgages?

William F. Owen

08-04-2008, 08:59 AM

is that we (the "West") look at China through Western eyes, and concepts. That's our filter, it what we've grown up with, so it's understandable. Problem is, we miss stuff as a result. Here's a great example of something missed:

There's a huge difference between something you don't know and something you don't understand.

The idea that "Westerners" don't understand China (or the Middle East) is, IMO, simplistic, misleading and basically not true. There is, however a lot about China, we don't know.

The Chinese are very pretty easy to understand, and what it more there is a whole raft of westerners, who read and speak Chinese, who are good at understanding them. It is simply a matter of values, and assembling them in the right order.

The idea that the Chinese are complexity and arcane is an out growth of "China Watchers" wanting to make themselves more skilled than they actually are. What has emerged is a perception that doing the blindingly obvious is somehow clever.

A friend of mine sat through a very uncomfortable dinner in Singapore where a Washington based "China Expert" was lecturing a Thai Air Force officer on the Chinese threat to Thailand. After about 20 mins, the RTAF guy held up his hand and asked "Do you speak Cantonese?" The Expert said he spoke a little. The RTAF guy then suggested, "perhaps if we speak Cantonese, you will improve." No one laughed. If they had, they would have lost face.

Ken White

08-04-2008, 04:10 PM

Have to again agree with Wilf. The Chinese and most Asians are really pretty straightforward. They are just far more patient than westerners and they talk less than -- or do not think out loud like -- westerners. Compared the the absolute duplicity, legerdemain and flat out lies in the ME (all in western terms, not those of the ME), Asians are an open book.

Saving face is quite far from an Asian-only activity... :wry:

Jedburgh

09-17-2008, 09:01 PM

SSI, 17 Sep 08: The "People" in the PLA: Recruitment, Training, and Education in China's Military (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB858.pdf)

This volume represents the latest in the series published by the Strategic Studies Institute (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/) and describes the advances and reforms the PLA has made in its recruitment, officer and NCO training and education, and mobilization. As part of its larger reform effort to modernize and transform its military into a technologically sophisticated force, the PLA has implemented a number of measures aimed at training up a “new-type” officer for its modernized forces—one capable of operating effectively in a technologically advanced “informationalized” environment. This volume sheds light on such important questions as how the PLA’s personnel system is adapting to fulfill the requirements of a military force capable of “winning local wars under informationalized conditions” and how the PLA is cultivating a new generation of officers and what capabilities these new officers will likely possess.
Complete 401-page document at the link.

Jedburgh

04-28-2010, 12:12 PM

ASPI, 28 Apr 10: China's Maritime Strategic Agenda (http://www.aspi.org.au/publications/publication_details.aspx?ContentID=251&pubtype=9)

This Policy Analysis makes the following arguments about China’s maritime strategic agenda:

1. China has legitimate and growing maritime interests, and increasingly will plan to safeguard those interests independently.

2. The PLA Navy aspires to the ability to undertake operations far from home, but bluewater capabilities are not the main focus for China’s naval development.

3. China’s maritime strategic focus remains on the semi-enclosed and other narrow seas of East Asia.

4. China’s East Asian maritime preoccupations, not its occasional bluewater forays, are of greatest strategic significance. They pose direct challenges to the US sea‑based alliance system and the regional order that the system underpins.

GI Zhou

04-28-2010, 05:05 PM

Thre biggest issue on many of these papers is a lack of referencing. There is a serious lack of translation of open source Chinese defence material so most of these reports tend to rehash the same material. The US Navy War College being the exception.

AdamG

05-26-2010, 12:18 PM

To quote the immortal Scooby : rut-ro.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0a97c53a-681a-11df-a52f-00144feab49a.html

The commander of US forces in the Pacific has warned that China’s military is more aggressively asserting its territorial claims in regional waters.

Admiral Robert Willard told the Financial Times: “There has been an assertiveness that has been growing over time, particularly in the South China Sea and in the East China Sea.”

He said China’s extensive claims to islands and waters in the region were “generating increasing concern broadly across the region and require address”.

selil

05-26-2010, 12:35 PM

I'm in Suzhou China writing this. I took the bullet train from Shanghai to Suzhou for about $6 traveling flat smooth at 200KPH. On my morning runs (I'm here for a little over three weeks) my only gripe on the manicured running paths is I have to dodge an enormous amount of construction. I'm teaching at a major university in a town filled with over a dozen universities with over 50K students at each. I don't know Chinese (or any other languages except English), but the 75 students in my class all speak multiple languages. China is on the move in ways people simply do not understand. The number of construction cranes is beyond anything I've ever seen.

Tukhachevskii

05-27-2010, 09:53 AM

This book, Awakening Giants, Feet of Clay: Assessing the Economic Rise of China and India (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9153.html), was required reading at my old uni. There was a shorter version published as an article but I do not recall where. Chapter One: The Myths Floating around the Giants is here (http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9153.pdf).

On a different note China has leased the DPRK/North Korean port of Rajin;

Who uses Rajin's Ports? (http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2010/05/23/who-uses-rajins-ports/)

&

China leases Rason port for 10 years (http://www.nkeconwatch.com/2010/03/08/china-leases-rason-port-for-10-years/)

The Rajin facility will give Chinese importers and exporters direct access to the Sea of Japan for the first time. "It is the country's first access to the maritime space in its northeast since it was blocked over a century ago", the Global Times reported

both via North Korean Economy Watch (http://www.nkeconwatch.com/)

davidbfpo

10-15-2010, 08:43 PM

From IISS:
The People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has in 2010 taken part in numerous exercises, experimented with long-range force projection and represented China abroad in a number of diplomatic visits. This heightened level of activity results from an ambitious naval strategy which seeks to secure China's access to energy resources and to give it more diplomatic leverage in territorial disputes with its neighbours.

Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-16-2010/october/chinas-three-point-naval-strategy/

I have added a link to the comments on their role in the Gulf of Aden on the Somali piracy thread too.

AdamG

12-30-2010, 01:19 PM

China is preparing for conflict 'in every direction', the defence minister said on Wednesday in remarks that threaten to overshadow a visit to Beijing by his US counterpart next month.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8229789/China-preparing-for-armed-conflict-in-every-direction.html

Cliff

01-13-2011, 03:58 AM

NY times and several other sources ran stories (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/world/asia/12fighter.html?ref=asia) yesterday on the first flight of the new Chinese "5th Gen" fighter. The J-20's first test flight was publicized by the PLA military in a very unusual fashion, allowing pictures and video to be taken and posted on the internet. The timing was rather odd as well, as it coincided with SECDEF Gates visiting to try and establish mil-to-mil dialog.

The most interesting part of the story is that Chinese President Hu Jintao reportedly didn't know about the test and lost some face as a result.

According to the Times, the official Chinese media is trying to walk the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/world/asia/13fighter.html?_r=1&ref=world) back today. The Chinese People's Daily Global Times website (their English edition) points the finger (opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2011-01/611519.html) at the US, saying that the US shouldn't fear China challenging its dominance in their own back yard.

The Chinese official version mirrors the rationale for Chinese military expansion that Thomas P.M. Barnett has been talking about lately. The analogy is that we wouldn't like China conducting exercises with Cuba in the Gulf of Mexico. Barnett has drafted a "grand strategy terms sheet (http://thomaspmbarnett.squarespace.com/storage/Final12-14-1012-14-2010.pdf)" with John Milligan-Whyte and Dai Min of the Centre for America-China Partnership, which is a think tank that seeks to better US-China relations on rational terms. Their terms sheet seeks to come to a strategic understanding based on shared economic interests, while defusing security issues like Taiwan to prevent an arms race. The proposal was developed in consultation with numerous former Chinese government officials, and presented to the China's State Council and to the US ambassador. (See here (http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4470138/is-chinas-economic-power-overestimated) for Dr. Barnett discussing it). The terms sheet was delivered at the end of December.

So, we have multiple attempts to reduce tensions and begin dialog, combined with an unprecedented amount of publicity for a major weapons system's initial tests. The interesting question is, was this:

1. An intentional play by the PLA to embarrass Hu Jintao and/or derail talks?
2. An intentional signal by the PLA to complement the discussions - as in "we are speaking softly, but our stick is getting more deadly by the day"?
3. Just a big coincidence?

No matter which is true, it definitely shows China's increasing self confidence. The question is what they will do about it.

Interested to hear your learned opinions.

V/R,

Cliff

carl

01-13-2011, 04:34 PM

Here is an opinion in a blog by Bill Bishop that seems astute.

http://www.sinocism.com/archives/1539

Check out his conclusion 4. It says in so many words that the Chinese gov is running a game on us. Hu is well aware of the J-20 program's status, though he may not have been aware of the exact date of the test flight. That date may have been weather dependent.

I trust not at all the ability of senior, or junior, American officials to judge the reactions and state of mind of Chinese officials and politicians. That is like little leaguers up against pro ballplayers. I also think it highly unlikely that the Party has lost control of the military. They did to a small degree at Tiannemen (sic) Square and I've read they have worked to make sure it won't happen again.

It is futile to think we are going to talk the Chinese out of building up their military. They are doing this for their own purposes, not because a carrier sails about off Korea once in a while.

Cliff

01-14-2011, 12:08 AM

Check out his conclusion 4. It says in so many words that the Chinese gov is running a game on us. Hu is well aware of the J-20 program's status, though he may not have been aware of the exact date of the test flight. That date may have been weather dependent.

I trust not at all the ability of senior, or junior, American officials to judge the reactions and state of mind of Chinese officials and politicians. That is like little leaguers up against pro ballplayers. I also think it highly unlikely that the Party has lost control of the military. They did to a small degree at Tiannemen (sic) Square and I've read they have worked to make sure it won't happen again.

It is futile to think we are going to talk the Chinese out of building up their military. They are doing this for their own purposes, not because a carrier sails about off Korea once in a while.

Carl-

Good find on the article.

I have to agree, I think Hu knew the test would happen but not when. Probably a coincidence on timing but not on the release.

If you look at it from the Chinese perspective, it makes perfect sense to build up their military to protect their resource flows and commerce. I think we need to work some kind of understanding, though, before we both waste a lot of money on an arms race or some kind of mistake occurs.

The big problem I see in China is that there really isn't one person who is in charge. Since things are run by consensus (which is not obtained in an opaque manner) you have many interests being advanced and it is difficult to tell who is doing what and why.

Do you think a strategic understanding with the Chinese is possible? Is it wise?

V/R,

Cliff

carl

01-14-2011, 03:24 AM

I read a long time ago that China can be roughly compared to Imperial Germany of the early 20th century (or even Imperial Japan). It is a state that is just starting to get to get big an powerful. The problem will be to manage its integration into the world. Imperial Germany had some strange ideas and needlessly challenged the British in particular. Their integration into the world wasn't well controlled and a lot of bad things happened.

If that thesis is true, and I think it has merit, it will be very very difficult to come to an understanding with China and avoid a big complicated competition. I don't think it makes sense for them to build up their military to insure resource flows. There hasn't been any threat or constriction to their imports or exports since I don't know when. It does make sense for them to build up if they want to have their way with Taiwan and other bits of disputed territory.

Donald Kagan wrote (I think) that emotions are an important part of what makes wars come. I think that is true. The Chinese (a completely uneducated guess on my part) may be feeling quite agrieved (sic) about all they have had to take over the last 170 years and now want some back. Reasoned talk about common interests isn't likely to fix that.

I found that article through the Information Dissemination blog. Those Navy guys talk a lot about China.

Dayuhan

01-14-2011, 06:18 AM

Imperial Germany "rose" at the peak of the colonial era, where the only way to acquire resources was to conquer them. That's not true for China: all they have to do is pay the market price, which they can afford to do.

Much is made of expanding Chinese influence in Africa, but I personally suspect that there's likely to be a real backlash there, and that it may prove difficult for China to manage. The open and blatant racism of many Chinese expatriates, the Chinese habit of importing labor, increasing acquisition of agricultural land, extensive bribery and close relationships with vulnerable dictators all point toward friction that could easily become violent. There's already talk of new colonialism and of Chinese invasion... as long as the net capital flow is inbound it may be controllable, but when the capital starts flowing out things could get ugly fast.

Not long ago a Chinese manager was confronted by disgruntled workers at a coal mine in Zambia; he opened up on them with a shotgun and put 11 in the hospital. This sort of thing does not win hearts and minds.

Backwards Observer

01-14-2011, 07:00 AM

There is probably much to be said for the China threat; most powerful nations behave in ways that are threatening or may be perceived as such at some time or another. Perhaps it is fair to say in this last respect, that the US has been generally more reasonable than most. Perhaps not.

Unfortunately, most of what passes for current analysis of the China threat seems to run the range from hypocrisy to borderline mental illness, and is notable for the bizarre high-school level of discourse. One might expect this of ignorant commies, but perhaps not from those who count themselves as exceptional. Just my opinion.

Bill Moore

01-17-2011, 12:17 AM

China’s president, Hu Jintao, is about to make a state visit to Washington, hard on the heels of a statement by Liang -Guanglie, his defense minister, that “in the next five years our military will push forward preparations for military conflicts in every strategic direction.” Not quite Nikita Khrushchev’s “We will bury you,” but close enough to give President Obama good reason to reset our overall policy towards the Chinese regime, including abandoning the outdated notion that trade is only about economics. President Hu knows better: Trade, overseas investment, currency manipulation—all, war by other means; all, about the place of nations in the world, a key part of the “strategic direction” in which he is taking his country.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/our-broken-china-policy_526878.html

Author's bio (note, not simply a HS graduate)

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/bio/221858.htm

Backwards Observer

01-17-2011, 05:33 AM

But there is good news, news that trumps all of these problems. Democratic governments are intrinsically more flexible than despotic ones. China’s rulers are not infallible, any more than are ours. But they are less likely to hear, much less respond to, criticism and therefore more likely to overreach and less likely to change even a mistaken course of action in the absence of serious external pressure. (from the Weekly Standard Article, "Our Broken China Policy", bold added)

Clearly there is nothing to worry about then.

Backwards Observer

01-17-2011, 06:04 AM

Also in doubt is whether the new regime in Bishkek will want to pursue Washington's military assistance, especially the setting up of a counter-terrorism center in the southern city of Batken near the Ferghana Valley. This includes the stationing of American military advisors on Kyrgyz soil, not far from the Chinese border.

Clearly, the US pressed ahead too rashly with its diplomacy. On the one hand, it came down from its high pedestal of championing the cause of democracy, rule of law and good governance by backing Bakiyev, whose rule lately had become notorious for corruption, cronyism and authoritarian practices, as well as serious economic mismanagement. (It will look cynical indeed if Washington once again tries to paint itself as a champion of democratic values in the Central Asian region.)

On the other hand, US diplomacy has seriously destabilized Kyrgyzstan. From its position as a relatively stable country in the region as of 2005, when the "Tulip" revolution erupted, it has now sunk to the bottom of the table for political stability, dropping below Tajikistan. An entire arc stretching from Pakistan and Afghanistan to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan has now become highly volatile.

US Reaps Bitter Harvest From 'Tulip' Revolution - Asia Times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LD10Ag01.html)

M K Bhadrakumar has parlayed a distinguished career in the Indian Foreign Service, with postings in Moscow, Seoul, Colombo, Bonn, Islamabad, Tashkent and Ankara into his current eminence as one of the country’s foremost thinkers on foreign affairs …

M K Bhadrakumar - World People's Blog (http://word.world-citizenship.org/wp-archive/2281)

The preference for the opinions of ideologues over those of individuals with regional experience is understandable but hardly exceptional.

Entropy

01-17-2011, 06:22 AM

From the "more things change the more they stay the same" Deparment:

WASHINGTON'S official Japan-bashing season has begun. In Congress, complaints about Japan's "perfidious" trading practices are reaching the stentorian levels one hears in Washington during an election year. The complaints are not new. What is new is the 1988 Trade Act. It allows the United States to retaliate against unfair Japanese trade practices.

The Bush Administration should soon have in its hands a tentative report on Japan's compliance (or lack of compliance) with the act. If it is warranted, "retaliation" -- restrictions on Japanese imports -- could take place as early as July.

This course of action should be entertained only as a last resort, not as an opportunistic policy to arouse voters in an election year. Retaliation is an act of trade war. And a focus on Japanese trading practices should not be used as a defense mechanism to suppress hard examination of America's chronic problems of huge deficits and low personal savings. This low rate shrinks the pool of investment capital for industrial innovation and enhances U.S. dependence on foreign investment, including Japan's, to finance the deficits.

For the most part, the present version of Japan-bashing is neither helpful nor illuminating. Brandishing a protectionist stick over Japan's new government may not go very far in persuading Tokyo to modify some of its policies. Indeed, the United States has some barriers of its own to lift. According to London's Economist magazine, except for food, Japan has fewer trade barriers than the United States.

- Excerpt from the US Miami Herald, March 14, 1990.

Bill Moore

01-17-2011, 07:11 AM

Posted by Backwards Observer
The preference for the opinions of ideologues over those of individuals with regional experience is understandable but hardly exceptional.

Not sure who you are implying in the articles you posted that has a preference for ideologues over regional experience unless it is Holbroke? I am also not convinced that regional experience erodes the views of ideologues.

The Great Game is still being played out in Central Asia despite GEN Petreaus' comments to the contrary. The regional players do see it as a zero sum game, and it is unlikely we'll develop meaningful cooperation in the region. At best we'll continue to buy influence by paying off the right actors, and that can get expensive when you're competing with the Chinese and Russians.

IMO we won't find much consensus with the Chinese on counter terrrorism in the region, because they most likely see it as a small problem and won't forsake their larger regional hegemonic strategic objectives to partner with us.

How this unfolds in the next decade will be very interesting. Russia and India will have a huge vote, and once we pull out of Afghanistan our vote will diminish considerably.

Backwards Observer

01-17-2011, 07:41 AM

COL Moore, always a pleasure.

Not sure who you are implying in the articles you posted that has a preference for ideologues over regional experience unless it is Holbroke?

I apologize for the confusion. It was my impression that the author of the article you posted (Our Broken China Policy) was an ideologue. Perhaps this is an unfair description:

Neoconservatives have formed the first successful American political movement of the 21st century, and this anthology takes a needed step toward identifying the ideas, most of them at least 20 years old, that can be loosely identified as their platform. Though Stelzer, a former American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, points to a diversity of neocon positions in his introduction, most would probably agree with the contributor who considers democracy "a framework to protect, and be protected by, a moral ethos," a belief shaping many of the views on foreign policy found here. Many of the names are familiar: Kristol, Kirkpatrick, Rice, Thatcher, Will, James Q. Wilson. George L. Kelling's famous "Broken Windows" essay (1982), which re-envisions police forces as a means of preserving social order before crime breaks out, is absorbed into the neocon canon in a prominent example of Stelzer's historical reach. (from the amazon product blurb for The Neocon Reader - by Irwin Seltzer)

The Neocon Reader by Irwin Seltzer - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Neocon-Reader-Irwin-Stelzer/dp/0802141935)

I am also not convinced that regional experience erodes the views of ideologues, I have known a few Ambassadors that stubornly hold onto ideologies despite the fact that their ideologies are not embraced by the nation they're in.

I certainly agree with this. Is this, however, an argument for giving undue credence to the opinions of people with no experience whatsoever in the regions they are tasked with understanding? Certainly, having to listen to the inanities of the people who actually live in these regions is to be avoided at all costs.

IMO we won't find much consensus with the Chinese on counter terrrorism in the region, because they most likely see it as a small problem and won't forsake their larger regional hegemonic strategic objectives to partner with us.

Perhaps they are misinterpreting the apparent US support for Islamic separatism in the Xinjiang region (which they may not view as a small problem); while the US is also at the same time presiding over what appears to be an influx of Evangelical Christian NGOs in Central Asia. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Backwards Observer

01-17-2011, 09:49 AM

To digress briefly, I'm just finishing Carl Sagan's, The Demon Haunted World, and the following impressed upon this reader no small reflection:

Friedrich von Spee (pronounced "Shpay") was a Jesuit priest who had the misfortune to hear the confessions of those accused of witchcraft in the German city of Wurzburg (see Chapter 7). In 1631, he published Cautio Criminalis (Precautions for Prosecutors), which exposed the essence of this Church/State terrorism against the innocent. Before he was punished he died of the plague - as a parish priest serving the afflicted. Here is an excerpt from his whistle-blowing book:

***

9. If a madman's ravings or some malicious and idle rumor (for no proof of the scandal is ever needed) points to some helpless old woman, she is the first to suffer.

10. Yet to avoid the appearance that she is indicted solely on the basis of rumor, without other proofs, a certain presumption of guilt is obtained by posing the following dilemma: Either she has led an evil and improper life, or she has led a good and proper one. If an evil one, then she should be guilty. On the other hand, if she has led a good life, this is just as damning; for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous.

11. Therefore the old woman is put in prison. A new proof is found through a second dilemma: she is afraid or not afraid. If she is (hearing of the horrible tortures used against witches), this is sure proof; for her conscience accuses her. If she does not show fear (trusting in her innocence), this too is a proof; for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. (excerpts, pp.402-403)

Friedrich Spee - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Spee)

Friedrich Spee - Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14213b.htm)

And also this footnote:

Making the President nervous, said a member of Congress, "is the new crime." Jefferson believed the Alien Act had been framed particularly to expel C. F. Volney,*

*A typical passage from Volney's 1791 book Ruins:

You dispute, you quarrel, you fight for that which is uncertain, that of which you doubt. O men! Is this not folly? . . . We must trace a line of distinction between those that are capable of verification, and those that are not, and separate by an inviolable barrier the world of fantastical beings from the world of realities; that is to say, all civil effect must be taken away from theological and religious opinions. (p.400)

Comte de Volney - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comte_de_Volney)

Such is the world of men in this measure.

slapout9

01-17-2011, 11:13 AM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/our-broken-china-policy_526878.html

Author's bio (note, not simply a HS graduate)

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/hearings/single_firm/bio/221858.htm

Fantastic article. In some ways he misses the extreme power China has because of their financial system....which is based upon the Lincoln/American/Constitutional model.....China has no Federal Reserve, they do not borrow money to meet their budgets, they have a Nationalized Banking system that prints all the money it needs in order to achieve its stated policies.

Bill Moore

01-17-2011, 05:45 PM

Posted by Backwards Observer,

Perhaps they are misinterpreting the apparent US support for Islamic separatism in the Xinjiang region (which they may not view as a small problem); while the US is also at the same time presiding over what appears to be an influx of Evangelical Christian NGOs in Central Asia. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

I too have deep concerns with the Neocon ideology, and I believe all economists are ideologues, but that doesn't mean we can simply disregard everything they put out, because much of what they put out are facts, not ideology. In the case of Irwin's comments, many of them seem to be validated today yet again by the comments made by Hu who once again criticized the global economy being based on the USD standard.

Personally, I think we underestimate the challenge China presents, because our politicians believe we're living in a new era where we all have common interests. We also tend to view threats mostly as military opposition, and China at this time is not a credible military competitor, but war can be waged through other means, which was Irwin's point. In the end I'm not sure what's worse, seeing boogey men that aren't there, or refusing to see the threats that are there? Fortunately the nature of the threats presented by China don't necessarily have to lead to a shooting war, especially if the threats are recognized now and subsequently meant with a longer term well thought out strategy, versus a knee jerk reaction to a particular event. I think another strategy we should be thinking about is what happens if China's economy collapses?

I believe it is true we provide some moral support to the Muslim separatists, but I doubt the policy is to encourage separation, but rather better integration and less discrimination. As for the Christian NGOs, they're normally perceived as problematic by the U.S. government because their agenda frequently has nothing to do with our policy, but they're perceived to be pushing our government's agenda. In both cases I don't know, so the above is simply my speculation.

Backwards Observer

01-17-2011, 07:30 PM

Posted by Backwards Observer,

I too have deep concerns with the Neocon ideology, and I believe all economists are ideologues, but that doesn't mean we can simply disregard everything they put out, because much of what they put out are facts, not ideology.

I'm not sure what Neocon ideology is, should it cause one concern?

President Hu knows better: Trade, overseas investment, currency manipulation—all, war by other means ("Our Broken China Policy" excerpt)

Many in South East Asia who grew up under colonialism, lived under occupation, did business with the new breed of Westerners in the Eighties or watched the Asian Financial Crisis unfold in the late Nineties are somewhat familiar with what economic warfare looks like. To infer that President Hu is practicing some nefarious black art is curious to say the least.

1997 Asian Financial Crisis - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_financial_crisis)

I believe it is true we provide some moral support to the Muslim separatists, but I doubt the policy is to encourage separation, but rather better integration and less discrimination. As for the Christian NGOs, they're normally perceived as problematic by the U.S. government because their agenda frequently has nothing to do with our policy, but they're perceived to be pushing our government's agenda.

A region that's seen thousands to millions of people die when instability erupts may view the threat differently. Could China conceivably be recognising a long-term problem in the sometimes haphazardly applied freedom agenda? Destabilisation by outside powers, whether intended or unintended, is not a dinner party either.

COL Moore, thanks for taking the time.

Bill Moore

01-17-2011, 09:44 PM

Posted by Backwards Observer,

COL Moore, thanks for taking the time.

Much appreciate the promotion, especially if a paycheck comes with it :D

As the old saying goes, I'm not a COL, I work for a living. COL's also claim to know the answers, I only offer alternative views (not life styles) to hopefully challenge the dogmas that plague our thinking (mine included).

I'm not sure what Neocon ideology is, should it cause one concern?

Based on my readings and listening to various political talk shows the neocon philosophy touches a lot of areas ranging from culture to foreign policy. My main concern is they tend to aggressively push democracy and free markets (and under the former President used the military to forceably install this type of government system). They see it as a natural evolutionary state for States, and if they achieve it they'll be unlikely to engage in hostile acts against our interests. I used to be a big believer, but have soured on the philosophy over the years. I now tend to think if a nation and its people (not sure how you separate the two) desire to establish a democracy, we should be there to help (if requested), but we have no business forceably installing democracy and free markets at the tip of the bayonet, nor do we have a good track record in doing so. I think our foreign policy needs to be more pragmatic. Should it be a cause of concern? I think that depends on your world view.

Many in South East Asia who grew up under colonialism, lived under occupation, did business with the new breed of Westerners in the Eighties or watched the Asian Financial Crisis unfold in the late Nineties are somewhat familiar with what economic warfare looks like. To infer that President Hu is practicing some nefarious black art is curious to say the least.

Maybe, maybe not, and I don't think we really know how much President Hu actually controls.

Could China conceivably be recognising a long-term problem in the sometimes haphazardly applied freedom agenda? Destabilisation by outside powers, whether intended or unintended, is not a dinner party either.

I agree, and this is where our neocon approach is seen as by others as destablizing and dangerous, which in turn pushes some countries to pursue a hostile relationship with the U.S..

Backwards Observer

01-18-2011, 04:15 AM

Posted by Backwards Observer,

Much appreciate the promotion,

I almost was going to address you as GEN Moore, tuan sahib. I blame my post-colonial upbringing.

Bill Moore

01-18-2011, 04:48 AM

I almost was going to address you as GEN Moore, tuan sahib. I blame my post-colonial upbringing.

I can hear the rumors now, Bill retired and then joined some mercenary group that overthrew a small country in Africa and appointed himself General. :D

davidbfpo

01-18-2011, 09:15 AM

A recently published paper on China's Military Rise (which awaits reading on holiday) and to public statements on US-PRC military links:http://www.iiss.org/

slapout9

01-18-2011, 12:05 PM

Link to article on how China does money.

http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/creative_accounting.php

Jedburgh

01-19-2011, 05:07 PM

INSS, 18 Jan 11: Getting Beyond Taiwan? Chinese Foreign Policy and PLA Modernization (http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/StrForum/SF-261.pdf)

Key Points
Deeper rapprochement across the Taiwan Strait would remove a longstanding source of regional tension and the most likely source of war between the United States and China.
Cross-strait rapprochement would also lead to new frictions and new worries among regional countries and the United States that a China no longer focused on Taiwan will use its increased power to challenge their interests elsewhere in Asia.
Stabilizing the cross-strait political situation will free up resources previously devoted to military preparations for Taiwan contingencies and allow the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to undertake new missions and reassess priorities.
The direction of PLA modernization can help alleviate or further exacerbate the concerns about a rising China that will become more powerful but also less constrained by Taiwan.

slapout9

01-22-2011, 04:40 AM

Link to opening seen of one of greatest Unconventional War movies of all time(Chinese call it Unrestricted Warfare). The movie is about Chinese brainwashing techniques used to support a political assassination that stages an internal takeover of America by the Secret Rich Elite of America who have always supported the basic idea of Communism (rule by a rich,privileged central planning committee). The original movie is showing on some cable channel this month.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBDhoUZgsDo&NR=1

Backwards Observer

01-22-2011, 08:32 AM

The movie is about Chinese brainwashing techniques

Ya, I saw this movie in Brainwashing Camp, good film. It seems to activate the CHOODA Loop: CHICOMS!OMFG! -> Observe -> Orient -> Decide -> Act -> CHICOMS!OMFG! -> Observe -> Orient -> etc.

Backwards Observer

01-22-2011, 10:36 AM

Cliff

01-22-2011, 08:57 PM

As far as China's Emergence as a Superpower: The Sequel, my guess is that barring world-crippling, high-stakes kineticism, the US will probably be back to playing at an advantage within a generation or so. Uncritically buying self-generated PR seems to hobble the so-called OODA loop, and China appears to be exhibiting signs of this; a common human failing perhaps. The oft and correctly cited US advantages of intellectual open society and melting-pot dynamics are probably more advanced than anywhere else is going to be for a long while.

The downside might be that Americans seem to derive more pleasure from kicking each other in the balls than anything else. Maybe it's a "fun" thing, I dunno.

I agree that China's time appears to be limited. See Paul Krugman's op ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) on the NYT website... there are serious structural economic problems in China that aren't being addressed.

Backwards Observer, I think your last point is important - America has been able to deal with significant changes in the environment precisely because we are able to figure out we were wrong, kick ourselves, and still manage to somehow change policy and move in a positive direction.

Would China's (or most other country's!) leaders be able to mess something up as badly as the US did Iraq, admit they were wrong, and implement unpopular policies to change things for the better?

The real problem is the effect a Chinese downturn would have on the world economy. The US, EU, Japan etc are not recovered to the point where we could deal with such a bump in the road...

V/R,

Cliff

Backwards Observer

01-23-2011, 04:08 AM

I agree that China's time appears to be limited. See Paul Krugman's op ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) on the NYT website... there are serious structural economic problems in China that aren't being addressed.

Backwards Observer, I think your last point is important - America has been able to deal with significant changes in the environment precisely because we are able to figure out we were wrong, kick ourselves, and still manage to somehow change policy and move in a positive direction.

Would China's (or most other country's!) leaders be able to mess something up as badly as the US did Iraq, admit they were wrong, and implement unpopular policies to change things for the better?

The real problem is the effect a Chinese downturn would have on the world economy. The US, EU, Japan etc are not recovered to the point where we could deal with such a bump in the road...

V/R,

Cliff

I find your positive take on my comment fascinating. This is probably for the best. Ching chong, ching chong chong.

blueblood

01-23-2011, 11:44 AM

The rise of PR China is much less the issue than the erosion of classic military power attributes of the West.

The shipyard industry of the U.S. is tiny, inferior to Croatia's or Poland's - but its navy is the biggest one.
Western steel production is much greater than in WW2 - but dwarfed by steel production in China.
Our electronics industry is good - but lots of electronics production happens in Asia.
Our chemical industry is strong - but new production plants are typically either close to natural gas resources or in Asia (because that's where so much of the manufacturing industry is now).
We still have huge populations - but their age structure and the rise of China and India to relevance dwarfes our mobilization strengths.

Even if you believe that major conventional wars are a thing of the past - we should adjust the perception of ourselves to reality.
It's not just the rise of developing countries that changes the balance - it's also our relative and often even absolute decline in many areas.

It would be dangerous to base our foreign policy on the feet of clay that the perception of our own strength really is.
Maybe the ongoing wars help our populations and politicians to understand the message.

China's shipbuilding capacity or rather manufacturing capacity as a whole is huge and it's only getting bigger.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2011-01/17/content_11863027.htm

http://news.chinaa2z.com/news/html/2009/20090630/20090630084259917082/20090630085256244750.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/photo/2010-01/23/content_9366573.htm

But China still lacks a formidable semiconductor industry like other East Asian nations like Japan And South Korea and also their technology will need some 10 - 20 years to be on par with West. Their natural resources are dwindling fast but they are trying to have a stronghold in Central Asia and its abundant natural resources.

India on the other hand is all together a different story, unlike China our growth is driven by the private sector so it will take a bit more time when compared to China. But then again India is no threat to any country other than Pakistan and up to certain extent China.

Regarding mobilization of American and European troops to China, I don't think its feasible as China's population is nearly twice as much as that of the whole Europe therefore it has a very large pool to draw soldiers and after its economic success, a surge of nationalism and assertiveness has engulfed the nation.

Thanks.

davidbfpo

01-30-2011, 02:10 PM

Paul Rogers writes, with a variety of links, to technical comments on the J-20 fighter and the strategic and ends with:
...by allowing the release of information about the J-20 they may also achieve the aim of diverting some of America's best scientific and technological talent into big new defence projects - while China maintains the priority of building its civil economy. Such a policy would be even more complicated for the United States: for if a jungle full of elusive snakes was difficult to "keep track of", a devious new dragon that remains one step ahead even as you think you have its measure - that is much more tricky.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/china%E2%80%99s-military-threat-or-twist

davidbfpo

02-02-2011, 09:50 PM

From IISS Strategic Comments:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/february/chinas-j-20-future-rival-for-air-dominance/

AdamG

02-14-2011, 12:06 AM

Beijing, Feb 12 : Terming US attempts to woo India and other neighbours of China as "unbearable," an article in a Communist party magazine has said that Beijing must send a "clear signal" to these countries that it is ready to go to war to safeguard its national interests.

The article published in the Qiushi Journal, the official publication of the ruling Communist Party of China (CPC) said China must adhere to a basic strategic principle of not initiating war but being ready to counterattack.

"We must send a clear signal to our neighbouring countries that we don't fear war, and we are prepared at any time to go to war to safeguard our national interests," the article said, suggesting an aggressive strategy to counter emerging US alliances in the region.

and

China on its part, it said, can consider the idea of launching economic warfare through strategies to contain the US dollar and making effective use of forums like the IMF and initiating a space war by developing strong space weapons.

It also suggested as a counter-strategy the idea of pursuing a strong policy against neighbours joining the US alliance, even attacking a nearby enemy and forming anti-US alliances in Latin America and Africa.

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/World/China_Ready_To_Go_To_War_Says_Chinese_Communist_Pa rty-3010.html

Bill Moore

02-14-2011, 12:40 AM

Adam, did I miss it, or did the article only state Chinese Communist Magazine and didn't reference an issue or link? India's media is famous for drumming up good stories disassociated from facts, which unfortunately colors the few good news stories they uncover.

Also important is who wrote it, and who the intended audience really was. We have some pretty provocative opinion pieces in our journals also, and they don't represent State policy. Not down playing this, just requesting more information.

Loved the comment in the article, "flies do not stare at seamless eggs".

AdamG

02-14-2011, 02:11 AM

Not down playing this, just requesting more information.

Bob,
Google is your friend. 'Quishi-Journal' search term, published 1st & 16th of the month. There's probably a full translation up on OpenSource.gov but knowing the Indian press, the article probably had the bulk of the Chicom text in it already.

http://www.oriprobe.com/qiushi_en.html

http://www.asianage.com/international/peace-china-not-gained-giving-only-through-war-185

Backwards Observer

02-14-2011, 02:30 AM

U.S. “strategic priorities and interests will increasingly emanate from the Asia-Pacific region.” For “decades to come” the military will keep a robust presence in Northeast Asia. Across Southeast Asia and the Pacific, the U.S. will “seek new ways to catalyze greater regional security cooperation,” including with traditional Chinese allies like Vietnam.

Mullen to China - We're Staying In Your Backyard - Danger Room (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/mullen-to-china-were-staying-in-your-backyard/)

The childish burblings of both China and the United States are becoming wearisome. Frankly, I would have expected better of the US, but there ya go.

Ken White

02-14-2011, 02:49 AM

It's operated by a bunch of wannabe's whose greatest claim to fame is that they can rouse rabble...

That's merely one guys interpretation of the NMS / CJCS comments and his writings are not the position of the US Government -- for that matter, neither are the comments of the Chairman of the JCS necessarily indicative of that position.

Our so-called news media babbles a lot and rarely do they actually reflect a true position of the government.

Backwards Observer

02-14-2011, 03:10 AM

Our so-called news media babbles a lot and rarely do they actually reflect a true position of the government.

I stand corrected. It's good to know some folks can still tell the difference between white and wong. Or something like that. Anyhoo...

ocnus

02-14-2011, 04:14 PM

Perhaps one of the reasons for its strength is the role of PLA-owned companies.

Fuchs

02-14-2011, 07:37 PM

It's operated by a bunch of wannabe's ...

Maybe you can provide something substantial on the article to make up for the dirty ad hominem attack?

Wired's Danger Room is the most visited MilBlog, with articles by journalists and former military personnel. We could ignore it - but by that standard one ought to ignore almost all sources, ending up with a completely unsatisfactory choice of information sources.

What's worse; it's a very questionable approach to consider only the government itself as a source for info about the government's intent.
Imagine this: Governments lie, and it's the press' job to expose lies and misleading statements - or to comment on vague statements.

carl

02-14-2011, 07:46 PM

"including with traditional Chinese allies like Vietnam."

Hmm. You learn something new everyday.

Fuchs

02-14-2011, 08:24 PM

Americans seem to use the words "ally" and "allies" very loosely in many contexts...

Ken White

02-14-2011, 08:24 PM

Maybe you can provide something substantial on the article to make up for the dirty ad hominem attack?Ad Hom it certainly was -- but not dirty IMO. I can get dirty but rarely do -- here. :wry:

As for something substantial, I thought I did provide that -- I simply said the Blogger's opinions were not the position of the US Government. If you know otherwise, let us know.
Wired's Danger Room is the most visited MilBlog, with articles by journalists and former military personnel. We could ignore it - but by that standard one ought to ignore almost all sources, ending up with a completely unsatisfactory choice of information sources.You got me on that one -- ignore's a bad choice of words...

Or would have been if I had used it. I did not; I wrote "Don't pay a whole lot of attention to that Blog." Not the same thing. In essence I said do not take anything written there as definitive. That also applies to anything written here -- and by me. And you... :D

I also read the Blog; not overly impressed with it but I read it in order to know what the cognoscenti are thinking. We all need a chuckle now and then and they do get a good scoop on occasion. That does not mean they or any blog, media outlet or source are always totally believable or accurate. As for 'Danger Room,' on an accuracy scale, I'd give it 6 or 7 out of 10, it's better than most (you get an 8 or 9...) -- none are perfect (no 10s). Nor am I (Registering at 8.052941).
All of us should read multiple, preferably competing and /or disagreeing sources and then make up our own minds. I'm sure you do that.

So do others.
What's worse; it's a very questionable approach to consider only the government itself as a source for info about the government's intent.

Imagine this: Governments lie, and it's the press' job to expose lies and misleading statements - or to comment on vague statements.All true and I didn't say otherwise. I did say that the CJCS also did not speak for the US Government. ;)

Note that I did not say, as you imply, that whatever the US Government said was to be taken as the entire truth and that I have on numerous occasions on this Board said that it often dissembled and obfuscated, sometimes for good reason, sometimes stupidly -- and often because that Government is quite large and frequently one Agency doesn't know what another is doing... :rolleyes:

Fuchs

02-14-2011, 09:07 PM

That does not mean they or any blog, media outlet or source are always totally believable or accurate. As for 'Danger Room,' on an accuracy scale, I'd give it 6 or 7 out of 10, it's better than most (you get an 8 or 9...) -- none are perfect (no 10s).

Flattery in a discussion - you seem to add rhetoric tricks even at high age. :eek:

Btw, it's not always the used words that count, but the impressions they leave on others.

Ken White

02-15-2011, 12:43 AM

Flattery in a discussion - you seem to add rhetoric tricks even at high age. :eek:True, I do -- but that wasn't an example. I do happen to agree with you on a great many things. There are a few, though, OTOH...:wry:
Btw, it's not always the used words that count, but the impressions they leave on others.Of course. ;)

davidbfpo

03-17-2011, 10:35 PM

I know there is a threat on China as a super power, but this article is about the naval aspects:
China's growing naval prowess is not so much an exercise in belligerence but an effort to shake off the shackles that have long confined its strategic reach. Nevertheless, there is reason for concern: Any China-related military conflict is most likely to be triggered and fought at sea.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/graham-ong-webb/how-far-will-chinas-navy-reach

Other threads, the long running China's Emergence as a Superpower:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=4366 and China's Emergence as Military Power Splits Strategists: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=493

davidbfpo

04-19-2011, 09:00 PM

An IISS Strategic Comment:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/april/lost-in-translation-chinas-opaque-defence-white-paper/

Cliff

04-19-2011, 11:56 PM

An IISS Strategic Comment:http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-17-2011/april/lost-in-translation-chinas-opaque-defence-white-paper/

davidbfpo-

Great find! The discussion of China's portrayal of their power projection capability is very interesting, as is the portion about the People's Armed Police taking primary responsibility for internal security.

It will be interesting to see how China ends up using its carrier once it is operational... and how they continue the charade of being a purely defensive force when they have that capability.

Thanks again!

V/R,

Cliff

Backwards Observer

04-20-2011, 03:43 AM

and how they continue the charade of being a purely defensive force when they have that capability.

What's fascinating is that for all the talk of PLA 'mystique' and lack of transparency, folks regularly seem able to divine the hostile intentions of the Chinese as clearly as the autumn moon on a cloudless night. Did someone re-activate Grill Flame?

Grill Flame (http://www.whale.to/b/grillflame.html)

Stargate Project - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project)

Backwards Observer

04-20-2011, 06:34 AM

For what it's worth, these articles from the Asia Times seemed to provide fairly reasonable assessments:

BEIJING - China's latest attempt to justify to the world its military aggrandizement, its White paper on the People's Liberation Army, was long on new policies and tasks of the army, but failed to explain how the growing amount of money budgeted for the military will be spent.

China banks on giving peace a chance - Francesco Sisci - Asia Times Online - 12 April, 2011 (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/MD12Ad02.html)

<>?<>

BEIJING - Geography is destiny - perhaps the most inevitable of all. China is the Asian country with the greatest number of bordering neighbors and, large or small, has less than idyllic relations with all of them. Many are unstable; others are ambitious and eye China's economic and political growth with fear and suspicion; and most have a history of vassalage to China from which they have freed themselves only in the past century. They all tend to worry that China, once again a superpower, will try to force them back into bondage.

The China 'threat' as a blessing - Francesco Sisci - Asia Times Online - 13 April, 2011 (http://atimes.com/atimes/China/MD13Ad02.html)

<>?<>

BEIJING - The first thing China needs if it ever is to become the indisputable world's "Number One", is friends and allies, not a mighty and technologically advanced military. Real friends, not like North Korea; and real allies, not like Pakistan, a country that if pressed would pick America. To have real friends, China has to become democratic, and while this would not be a total solution, it would be a necessary step.

Biding time for an orderly rise - Francesco Sisci - Asia Times Online - 14 April, 2011 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MD14Ad02.html)

<>?<>

TAIPEI - A proud China is set to launch its first aircraft carrier. For Taiwan, the carrier's most frightening aspect could be its name.

Ming Dynasty admiral spooks Taiwan - Jens Kastner - Asia Times Online - 13 April, 2011 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MD13Ad03.html)

<>?<>

Over the past decade or so, the "China threat" theory has spread throughout the West, despite Beijing's repeated pledges that China's rise will be peaceful.

US-China rivalry still a mismatch - Jinghao Zhu - Asia Times Online - April 14, 2011 (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MD14Ad01.html)

<>?<>

My personal Grill Flame thinks that if Taiwan wants to be an independent nation, they should be allowed to be so; realistically, I guess that would mean an autonomously governed province. Would that be a workable outcome, I don't know. Why China would want to be a 'superpower', I have no idea. Ego the Living Planet?

Ego the Living Planet - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_the_Living_Planet)

blueblood

04-20-2011, 08:16 PM

and

http://www.indiatvnews.com/news/World/China_Ready_To_Go_To_War_Says_Chinese_Communist_Pa rty-3010.html

IndiaTV is India's answer to Glenn Beck. Never mind the Indian media, they don't just provide you with the news, they can even make some.

For some genuine news regarding India consider these sources as somewhat closer to the truth.

http://www.timesnow.tv/

http://www.ndtv.com/

http://www.hinduonnet.com/

AdamG

05-20-2011, 03:02 PM

WASHINGTON, May 19 (Xinhua) -- Chen Bingde, chief of the General Staff of the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), is on a week-long trip to the United States, leading a PLA delegation.

During his stay, Chen has held talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his U.S. counterpart Mike Mullen, exchanging views on relations between the two militaries,international and regional issues as well as bilateral practical cooperation.

More importantly, Chen's visit is part of efforts to implement the consensus reached by Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-05/20/c_13885931.htm

China's top military officer said Wednesday that his country lacked the equipment and directives necessary to challenge the U.S. militarily.

"Through my visit over the past couple of days in the United States, I am surprised by the sophistication of the U.S. military, including its weapons and equipment and doctrines and so on," People's Liberation Army leader General Chen Bingde said. "I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States. As a matter of fact, the reconnaissance activities along China's coast by U.S. military aircraft and vessels are seen in China as deterrents."

For emphasis, the general added, "What I'm trying to say is that we do not have the capability to challenge the United States."

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/05/18/chinese-general-china-does-not-have-capability-challenge-us?test=latestnews

AdamG

05-22-2011, 03:11 AM

THE Philippines' defense and military establishments remain tight-lipped regarding an incident wherein Chinese fighter jets reportedly "buzzed" or flew too close to two aircraft while on a routine patrol over the disputed Spratlys Island in the South China Sea.

The military is still verifying the report, said Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) spokesman Commodore Miguel Jose Rodriguez, echoing the same statement made by AFP chief General Eduardo Oban when the incident was reported Thursday.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/05/20/government-embassy-tight-lipped-chinese-jet-encounter-156639

Facing the Threat of Piracy, China Starts to Talk Like a Superpower

On a visit to the U.S. this week, China's top military commander Chen Bingde suggested that the international coalition patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the coast of Somalia ought to take decisive action against pirate dens on land. So far, the counter-piracy strategy has focused on the pirate "mother-ships," usually retrofitted trawlers that tow little skiffs out into the deep sea. Yet the pirate problem emanating from lawless Somalia cost the global economy over $8.3 billion in 2010.

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/05/21/facing-the-threat-of-piracy-china-starts-to-talk-like-a-superpower/#ixzz1N2tqOshM

(Reuters) - Pakistan said on Saturday it wanted China to build it a naval base, in the latest sign of moves to strengthen ties with Beijing as relations with Washington falter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-pakistan-china-gwadar-idUSTRE74K27T20110521

Backwards Observer

05-22-2011, 04:26 PM

War, war, war...

A RISING star of the People's Liberation Army has called for China to rediscover its ''military culture'', while challenging unnamed Communist Party leaders for betraying their revolutionary heritage.

General Liu Yuan displays deep hostility to the United States, says war is a natural extension of economics and politics and claims that ''man cannot survive without killing''.

His essay, in a friend's book, says ''history is written by blood and slaughter'' and describes the nation-state as ''a power machine made of violence''.

Chinese urged to put war on pedestal - Sydney Morning Herald - May 23, 2011 (http://www.smh.com.au/world/chinese-urged-to-put-war-on-pedestal-20110522-1ez0q.html)

''Military culture is the oldest and most important wisdom of humanity,'' he writes. ''Without war, where would grand unity come from? Without force, how could fusion of the nation, the race, the culture, the south and the north be achieved?''

Let's fly the red flag again, says Chinese general - Sydney Morning Herald - May 23, 2011 (http://www.smh.com.au/world/lets-fly-the-red-flag-again-says-chinese-general-20110522-1eyzg.html)

***

The United States was born through war, reunited by war, and saved from destruction by war. No future generation, however comfortable and affluent, should escape that terrible knowledge.

What, then, can we do to restore the study of war to its proper place in the life of the American mind? The challenge isn’t just to reform the graduate schools or the professoriate, though that would help. On a deeper level, we need to reexamine the larger forces that have devalued the very idea of military history—of war itself. We must abandon the naive faith that with enough money, education, or good intentions we can change the nature of mankind so that conflict, as if by fiat, becomes a thing of the past. In the end, the study of war reminds us that we will never be gods. We will always just be men, it tells us. Some men will always prefer war to peace; and other men, we who have learned from the past, have a moral obligation to stop them.

Why Study War? - Victor Davis Hanson - 2007 (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_military_history.html)

***

Scarlett: Fiddle-dee-dee. War, war, war; this war talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. I get so bored I could scream. Besides... there isn't going to be any war.
Brent Tarleton: Not going to be any war?
Stuart Tarleton: Why, honey, of course there's gonna be a war.
Scarlett: If either of you boys says "war" just once again, I'll go in the house and slam the door.
Brent Tarleton: But Scarlett...
Stuart Tarleton: Don't you *want* us to have a war?
[she gets up and walks to the door, to their protestations]
Scarlett: [relenting] Well... but remember, I warned you.

Gone with the Wind (1939) - IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/quotes)

Backwards Observer

05-23-2011, 01:54 AM

Here's my guess for how a Taiwan scenario might play out. If a fracas starts, guys like the jovial General Liu "Power Machine Made Of Violence" Yuan will move to the forefront and Taiwan will be wiped flat in the first 72 hours. No invasion, no negotiation. Then the real fun begins. Curtis LeMay and 'Linebacker II in '64' fans will understand this, I'm sure.

Ray

05-24-2011, 07:10 AM

Would the US allow Taiwan to fold up because of a Mainland attack?

And would the Communists dare attacking Taiwan given the US business inroads into China?

Will China's economic progress survive without the US?

China's economy survives on copycating foreign items and goods and selling it cheap and shoddy.

If that route is closed, when what happens to China?

Bill Moore

06-05-2011, 06:50 PM

JMA,

I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.

LawVol posted,

Have we focused too much on the "war of terror" and thus dropped the ball in the Pacific? Is this issue evidence of our need to pursue a different strategy with respect to terrorism, so we can remember the big picture?

Our narrow laser like focus on the WOT has been at a detriment to our larger interests, but it isn't that black and white. The WOT remains important, and the WOT is also being waged (intelligently) in the Asia-Pacific region. State powers have always leveraged surrogates, insurgencies and other violent and non-violent movements to further their own goals, so as during the Cold War we need to look under the blanket a little closer to see who all the players are. In my opinion we are intentionally deceiving ourselves now because the truth is too unpleasant to accept.

The Cuyahoga Kid

06-05-2011, 09:30 PM

Yes, they have a plan and we don't.

Ok, but do they have a good plan?

Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.

tequila

06-06-2011, 08:03 PM

Ok, but do they have a good plan?

Personally, I think that the Chinese government has started buying the same bull it's sellling, that China is going to maintain it's current rate of economic growth for 20-30 years, instead of accepting that once today's youth bulge evaporates in the 2020's, productivity is going to drop off drastically, and the PRC's influence with it.

Just an 18 y.o.'s perspective, but I think that the CCP is trying to play in the big leagues, when they should be playing small ball, and that centralized policy planning is part of the problem, not the solution.

Agreed from someone who has visited the mainland away from the seaboard a few times and also experienced the CCP local bureaucracy in its unfettered glory.

Just an example of this in the NYTIMES regarding a much larger CCP project than any 'Battlestar Galactica' drilling platform:

Plan For China's Water Crisis Spurs Concern (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02water.html?ref=china&pagewanted=print)

North China (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) is dying.

A chronic drought is ravaging farmland. The Gobi Desert is inching south. The Yellow River, the so-called birthplace of Chinese civilization, is so polluted it can no longer supply drinking water. The rapid growth of megacities — 22 million people in Beijing and 12 million in Tianjin alone — has drained underground aquifers that took millenniums to fill.
Not atypically, the Chinese government has a grand and expensive solution: Divert at least six trillion gallons of water each year hundreds of miles from the other great Chinese river, the Yangtze, to slake the thirst of the north China plain and its 440 million people.

The engineering feat, called the South-North Water Diversion Project, is China’s most ambitious attempt to subjugate nature. It would be like channeling water from the Mississippi River to meet the drinking needs of Boston, New York and Washington. Its $62 billion price tag is twice that of the Three Gorges Dam, which is the world’s largest hydroelectric project (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/asia/20gorges.html).

And not unlike that project, which Chinese officials last month admitted had “urgent problems,” the water diversion scheme is increasingly mired in concerns about its cost, its environmental impact and the sacrifices poor people in the provinces are told to make for those in richer cities.

Three artificial channels from the Yangtze would transport precious water from the south, which itself is increasingly afflicted by droughts; the region is suffering its worst one in 50 years. The project’s human cost is staggering — along the middle route, which starts here in Hubei Province at a gigantic reservoir and snakes 800 miles to Beijing, about 350,000 villagers are being relocated to make way for the canal. Many are being resettled far from their homes and given low-grade farmland; in Hubei, thousands of people have been moved to the grounds of a former prison ...

LawVol

06-07-2011, 05:33 AM

Carl, I disagree, to a point, that law of the sea arguments will not stop them. From some things I've read and some China experts I've spoken to, China is quite in tune with legalities. In fact, they tend to predicate their activity on a legal basis. In response to the incidents with the US (EP-3 and USNS Impeccable), China crafted legal arguments. It may have something to do with their "smile campaign" and "peaceful rise" strategy. In any event, a vocal challenge to this interpretation of international law combined with US activity (e.g. port calls to Vietnam, continued surveillance from inside China's EEZ, etc.) may be beneficial. What else can we do?

Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?

We don't need to go toe-to-toe with China to protect our interests. SImply guaranteeing access and freedom of navigation in accordance with international law is sufficient. This is why China's strategy is anti-access and increased sovereignty at the expense of global commons.

tequila

06-07-2011, 12:37 PM

Tequila, I've never been to China, but can we really gauge their military by analyzing the CCP? Doesn't their military have more of a free hand vis-a-vis political control than ours? The weather satellite shoot-down comes to mind; the pols over their seemed caught off guard. Can we afford to be wrong?

The CCP maintains absolute control over the military. Frankly I don't buy the idea that the Party leadership did not know about the shootdown. There are factions and politics within the Party leadership, with corresponding factions within the Army. Some are more aggressive than others in the foreign policy realm. There may have been some disagreement between one faction with another over whether the shootdown was the right thing to do, but overall the shootdown fits with a broader CCP move towards reminding the U.S. that China maintains an aggressive deterrence capability.

That the CCP could force the military to divest itself from its enormous Egypt-like economic empire in the 1990s and early 2000's shows, IMO, who still has control. I agree that the professionalization of the PLA has distanced it from civil society and the CCP to an extent, but they still are under the full control of the Party.

carl

06-07-2011, 03:55 PM

John:

The things you mention will work in the short term, the next few years, if...if we do them with great energy. I am not sure we are doing anything. The Chinese pushed around some of our ships last year and whatever we did didn't stop them from shooting at Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen this year. What have we said about these latest incidents? Nothing much that I am aware of, and if my local paper doesn't make me aware of it then it wasn't strong enough. We have been friends with the Filipinos for a long time and the Vietnamese could do us a lot of good in the future and yet we say nothing. Some actual harsh words and regular port calls to Cam Ranh Bay by strong battle groups would work wonders. Of course the Chinese would scream bloody murder but I doubt they would do much. If we aren't willing to accept squawking we are back to doing nothing.

Once their navy gets big enough, all bets are off.

Guaranteeing access and freedom of navigation may require us to go toe to toe with the Chinese someday. Their actions over the last several years suggest it may come to that. Better to do something now thereby postponing it at the least.

Tequila is right, the CCP controls the military, all of it. I've read though that it is very useful for the CCP to keep people wondering, a clever tactic. They can hint that the peace loving CCP members are doing their best to keep those military savages in line, but they need help. So the CCP diplomats ask that other countries don't do anything that would set the savages off, like say exercising legitimate international rights or reacting to Chinese military provocations. Our elites would be suckers for that argument because it conforms to their pre-conceptions.

carl

06-07-2011, 04:13 PM

Can we afford to be wrong?

John, I forgot about this. We had better play it such a way that we can afford to be wrong, if we can, because we probably will be wrong. That leads to the good old plan around their capabilities and actions rather than their words.

jmm99

06-07-2011, 04:18 PM

From another thread (post # 103 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=121519&postcount=103)) (with other links), a link to Let's fly the red flag again, says general (http://www.smh.com.au/world/lets-fly-the-red-flag-again-says-general-20110522-1eyzg.html):

BEIJING: A Chinese general has issued a clarion call for the true heirs of the communist revolution to rediscover their fighting spirit and reinvent a rationale for their existence. ''No-surrender, Communist Party members!'' writes General Liu Yuan. ''Let's start again.''

Pointedly, General Liu distinguishes ''no-surrender'' cadres from unnamed top leaders who have sold out to foreign interests. ''Actually, the party has been repeatedly betrayed by general secretaries, both in and outside the country, recently and in the past,'' Liu writes.

Chinese leaders since 1989 have successfully presented a disciplined and united public face, in the knowledge that airing their differences could be collectively fatal. General Liu, the political commissar of the general logistics department and the son of a one-time anointed successor to Chairman Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, jokingly acknowledged that his essay breaks all the rules. ... (more in article)

General Liu Yuan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Yuan_(politician)), son of Liu Shaoqi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi), role in life as a general (political commissar) is to enforce the CCP line. Liu Yuan is an example (2nd generation) of CCP dominance over the PLA - as made by Taquila "The CCP maintains absolute control over the military."

One would not be too surprised to find "Unrestricted Warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrestricted_Warfare)" (with more than a little "Lawfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawfare)") in the Chinese menu. The Political Struggle and the Military Struggle are intertwined - thus, the need for senior political commissar generals such as Liu Yuan.

Regards

Mike

JMA

06-07-2011, 07:45 PM

JMA,

I don't think the U.S. or any other nation for that matter is unaware of the big changes regarding China's assertiveness. Russia is also more assertive. The question is how to manage and respond to it. The U.S.'s ability to influence based on superpower status is waning, but it is still very powerful. I am not sure what you are proposing the U.S. do at this point that it isn't already doing? I hope you are not proposing we go to war with China over some important, but still relatively minor incidents the SCS? I can't see how that will benefit us, or the global economy.

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now.

AdamG

06-07-2011, 08:38 PM

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Then every now and again they play the "two steps forward, one step back" routine which will be misread as a victory in Washington.

Further when the old enemy (Vietnam) starts looking for protection against China from the US one presumes that their old ally (Russia) has cried off and would give an indication of how serious the problem is.

I suggest that the turning point will come when the US id "forced to sell out Taiwan". Can't be too far away now*.

Excellent analysis.
*Probably Spring of 2013.

carl

06-07-2011, 08:50 PM

Look for the connected media to start floating "strategic analysis" that question the importance of Taiwan. They will follow it up with stories portraying the Nationalists as corrupt, brutal, untrustworthy and unwilling to accede to reasonable requests by us as a method to defuse a crisis even though we will make guarantees. etc. etc. The upshot is, if it happens, there will be a pr campaign first.

jmm99

06-08-2011, 02:25 AM

Cam Ranh Bay - 25 year lease (1979-2004) - terminated 2 May 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Ranh_Bay#Soviet_and_Russian_Naval_Base) - open for bidding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110200139.html).

As to Taiwan, 45 senators tell Obama: Sell Taiwan some F-16s already! (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/26/45_senators_tell_obama_sell_taiwan_some_f_16s_alre ady) (at FP, by Josh Rogin, May 26, 2011) (an interesting Senatorial coalition):

Unless the United States sells Taiwan some new fighter jets, the military balance between Taiwan and China will continue to spiral out of control to the detriment of both Taiwanese and U.S. security, 45 U.S. senators wrote on Thursday to President Barack Obama.
....
The letter was spearheaded by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and James Inhofe (R-OK), the two senators who resurrected the Senate Taiwan Caucus in January just in time for the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao. But it was also signed by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the two leaders of the brand-new China Working Group, which was created to build ties between Congress and Beijing.
....
But there's little prospect the Obama administration will approve the sale of F-16s to Taiwan anytime soon. Its decision to sell Taiwan $6.2 billion of arms in early 2010 provoked a reaction from Beijing that scuttled U.S.-China military-to-military cooperation for over a year -- and that sale didn't even include any F-16s.
....
Gates told the Chinese that the arms sales would continue, as they have for decades, under the Taiwan Relations Act, a U.S. law that mandates that the United States support Taiwan's self-defense.

The Taiwan Relations Act has a title referencing JMA's most favorite US Pres:

Full title - An act to help maintain peace, security, and stability in the Western Pacific and to promote the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter by authorizing the continuation of commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the United States and the people on Taiwan, and for other purposes.

And indeed, the US will -

"consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States"

which in DiploSpeak says "we ain't committed to do a damn thing".

Pres. Carter unilaterally abrogated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-American_Mutual_Defense_Treaty), which led to the SCOTUS case of Goldwater v. Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter) (Barry lost):

Holding - The issue at hand, whether President Carter could unilaterally break a defense treaty with the Republic of China without Senate approval, was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition. The case was dismissed.

The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".

If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Emergency_Economic_Powers_Act):

The IEEPA authorizes the president to declare the existence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat... to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States" that originates "in whole or substantial part outside the United States." It further authorizes the president, after such a declaration, to block transactions and freeze assets to deal with the threat. In the event of an actual attack on the United States, the president can also confiscate property connected with a country, group, or person that aided in the attack.

We did it to the Germans in both World Wars - but, of course, there has to be a will to use both military and political powers.

Absent a will to defend Taiwan (legally absent since 1980), Carl's scenario - "Look for the connected media to start floating ...." seems plausible. Does that mean I should be watching MSNBC for clues ? :D

Regards

Mike

carl

06-08-2011, 03:00 AM

Check out what the connected policy think tanks promulgate too.

Bill Moore

06-08-2011, 03:11 AM

Posted by JMM,

The net result is an intentional "strategic ambiguity".

I think this is appropriate at this time, it is somewhat challenging to develop a counter strategy against an ambiguous strategy. We don't need to draw lines in the sand, just be postured to respond in a manner of our chosing based on the situation and our interests.

If the US and China get into an armed conflict over Taiwan, the assets of China and its citizens (including US bonds) are subject to seizure under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act:

Are economies are so intertwined I don't see this as possible without an unacceptable retaliation. How many Americans live and work in China now? How many assets do U.S. companies have in China?

Posted by JMA,

Death by a thousand cuts...

I suggest that (confirmed by your reply) the Chinese have chosen the right strategy.

None of the moves they make will warrant (as seen by most) action to be taken.

Rather than the sexy sounding death by a thousand cuts, it two nations maneuvering for strategic advantage. You seem to think that China is getting it right and we're getting it wrong, but the fact that other countries are turning to us because they're concerned about Chinese aggression actually plays in our favor.

I think we are taking action on the diplomatic front, and I'm not sure what other action you think we need to take at this time? What has China done exactly in your view that requires us to take more action? What action should we take? Cost/benefit?

China has a lot of internal troubles, their foreign policy is clumsy, and yes they are modernizing their military and becoming more assertive, but I suspect we are also applying the strategy of a thousand cuts against them. This is normal big powers jockeying for influence and advantage, but nothing to date is cause for war. Will there be a war in the future with China? Only time will tell, but I do not believe it something that is predestined. Will there be another war? As the ancient Greeks said, "only the dead have seen the end of war."

davidbfpo

06-08-2011, 09:19 AM

When I last looked relations between RoC and PRC had relaxed. There is considerable RoC investment in PRC and significantly a large physical presence in PRC - in the hundreds of thousands. Less certain grounds now, I am sure there are student exchanges. Maybe not direct flights. The offshore islands garrisons have shrunk and the "theatre" of conflict has gone - loudspeakers etc.

Diplomatically there remains some competition, notably over recognition by small countries; to my knowledge in the Caribbean, for example a cricket stadium for Grenada where RoC said no and PRC said yes if you recognise us.

In their own way the two China's have evolved a relationship that works, each aspires to different national goals, they make money and they don't kill each other.

Now does RoC need the reassurance - however weak - of US support in a crisis with PRC over some now unforeseen matter?

jmm99

06-08-2011, 05:25 PM

We seize - Chinese investment in US: $2 trln and counting (http://blogs.reuters.com/india-expertzone/2011/03/02/chinese-investment-in-us-2-trln-and-counting/) (Mar 2, 2011).

They seize - US investment in China drops 28% (http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2011-05/18/content_12529925.htm) (Updated: 2011-05-18):

US investment from January to April decreased to $1.03 billion and the number of US firms setting up in China also fell by 3.85 percent to 475.

Net US over China seizures (in case of a shooting war) - 2 trillion +.

Regards

Mike

AdamG

06-08-2011, 07:39 PM

Carl, maybe you are right but what I thought was most interesting was the concept of a self sustaining city.....what exactly does that mean? Invasion by we(China) have a better idea on how to run things.

They're guided by a signal in the heavens
They're guided by this birthmark on their skin
They're guided by the beauty of their weapons
First they take Boise, then they take Detroit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVDgUnmX1E

- with apologies to Leonard Cohen. :cool:

This month, NPR is examining the many ways China is expanding its reach in the world — through investments, infrastructure, military power and more.

When the United States took over from Britain as the predominant world power 100 years ago, the transition was like one between brothers — or cousins, at least. And the two countries remain close allies to this day. The rise of China in relation to U.S. predominance presents a somewhat different challenge — with decades of sometimes outright hostility and an ongoing fractious relationship.

As it reemerges as a world power, the question is: Is China's awakening to be welcomed — or feared?

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/06/136889301/chinas-rise-a-quest-to-hug-the-world

carl

06-08-2011, 11:31 PM

One of the things people should weigh more heavily in this is the importance of emotion as a driver in China's actions. As noted by many here there is no rational reason for China to go to war with anybody. They are making lots of money right now and there is absolutely no extant external military threat to them, none, zero, zilch, nada. Yet, they continue to do the things they do.

They go ape if we sell Taiwan F-16s. Taiwan will never be a threat to mainland China. Never. We could transfer them the entire B-1B bomber force and all the logistics to go with it and they still wouldn't be a threat to China. But they go ape every time anything is done to enhance Taiwan's ability to defend itself from China. That only makes sense if they want to take it and are willing to do so by force, sometime in the future. Is there any rational, cost vs. benefit reason for them to continue to desire this? No, none. But there is an emotional one for the CCP. They can complete what they started decades ago and smite those who have defied them for so long. That is a very powerful emotional impulse and if it were done there would be very powerful emotional satisfaction.

If you look at their actions with emotion in mind, the things they are doing make some sense. They are building a powerful navy. Why? They haven't been subject to a blockade since the CCP took the place over. We don't do blockades, with the sole exception of Haiphong and that was only briefly and after the NVA had been killing our guys for almost a decade. (whoops, I forgot Libya, but pushing around itty-bitty countries shouldn't make a difference unless you are blinded by emotions.) In any case our navy is shrinking and in 10 years we couldn't do it we wanted to. There is no other navy that could do one. But they are still building a big navy. That only makes sense if they see a possibility of going toe to toe with us at sometime in the future, and that would only make sense if they have a plan in mind that would provoke us beyond endurance. Run the numbers and there is no rational payoff in chancing a fight with us. But there would be emotional satisfaction in showing up the arrogant Yankees.

There was no rational reason for the Japanese to pick on China but they did. There was no good reason for Italy to conquer Ethiopia but they did. There was no good reason for the Germans to invade Poland beyond a desire to do so, but they did it anyway. If anybody in the CCP bigwig room really runs the numbers, there is no reason for them to be do any of the provocative things they have been up to, but they are anyway because they want to. I think it is an emotional drive and helps to lead them into believing their own propaganda as the The Cuyahoga Kid suggested. Emotions are very powerful things and they lead people down paths they oughtant'a go down. This could get very bad.

LawVol

06-09-2011, 01:38 PM

Emotion? Maybe. But controlled emotion. The Chinese psyche is ineffected with concepts of sovereignty; much more so than your average right-wing, black helicopter-seeing, militia guy in the US. It comes from their "century of humiliation" when they were taken advantage of by western powers. Whether we agree with that characterization is irrelevant, it's what they believe. Thus, they will take whatever action necessary to preserve their sovereignty. Since they see Taiwan as part of China (and they have a pretty good legal argument), this naturally fits within their sovereignty plans. They don't need to go toe-to-toe with us in an effort to win. They simply need to make it too costly for us to fight and that's looking much easier these days. Would most Americans really support spilling American blood to protect Taiwan? As the father of a kid who could be doing the fighting in as little as ten years, I'd say NO.

That being said, the real issue isn't really Taiwan. Assuming complete compliance with international law in all respects, would our world really change if Taiwan decided tomorrow to join China? However, I think our world would change greatly if access to that part of the world was suddenly denied. Half of world maritime trade transits that part of the world. This short paper (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA394162), although dated, gives a good idea of the issue. I'm really only beginning to explore the economic nexus here, but I see the potential impact as perhaps catastrophic. China seems to be pursuing an anit-access/are denial (A2/AD) strategy that, if successful, poses are far larger threat than AQ and their ilk. This A2/AD strategy employs military, political, legal, and media means. Sure, the Air Force uses this to strike up fears to drive their share of the budget, but there is still a concern here that should be address and I think we've ignored this for too long because of our other committments.

carl

06-09-2011, 02:28 PM

John:

If Taiwan decided to join China no one would care. If Taiwan was forced to decide to join China, then a lot of people would care, because that could only happen if China stared us down. If that happened it would change the calculations of a lot of countries. The countries on the Pacific and Indian oceans rim can only stand against China WITH us; and we can only handle China WITH them. If we didn't stand WITH Taiwan against China in a critical situation they would wonder if we would stand with them when the time came. In those circumstances, they would be well advised not to count on us and make their own arrangements.

When that happened, there goes your access to the area. It wouldn't be denied though. It would be controlled and given the life's outlook in the CCP bigwig room, god only knows what that would mean. It wouldn't be good.

There is lots of room for miscalculation in all of this and those miscalculation would be driven by emotion probably. The Poles fought and the Vietnamese might too. The trick is to postpone all this as long as possible to give China a chance to settle down. I believe the way to do that is to start early when things are small and miscalculations don't entail such big consequences. For example, protest loud and strong when the Chinese Navy pushes around Filipino fishermen, sked port calls to Cam Ranh bay and sell the durn F-16s to Taiwan.

I don't expect this to happen though. Early action is contrary to the sensibilities of our betters inside the beltway. They will consider the matter thoughtfully while being cognizant of the subtle nuances of the various alternatives until the alternatives are the devil and the deep blue sea.

Emotions are emotions. Controlled ones are maybe more dangerous because they are more deeply imprinted in the mind. Things may get very dangerous.

slapout9

06-09-2011, 05:22 PM

John:

If that happened it would change the calculations of a lot of countries. The countries on the Pacific and Indian oceans rim can only stand against China WITH us; and we can only handle China WITH them. If we didn't stand WITH Taiwan against China in a critical situation they would wonder if we would stand with them when the time came. In those circumstances, they would be well advised not to count on us and make their own arrangements.

When that happened, there goes your access to the area. It wouldn't be denied though. It would be controlled and given the life's outlook in the CCP bigwig room, god only knows what that would mean. It wouldn't be good.

Somebody once said "Geography is destiny." The location plays in China's favor more so than it does to the US. We are a hemispheric power(North,Central,South America) not the World Power we think we are. Of course I could be wrong to.:D

carl

06-09-2011, 05:51 PM

Slap:

I think the geography is stacked against China if it wants to be hostile. It does not have unfettered access to the world by sea. There are lots of islands and straits out there. Landward it has the snowlands to the north, empty grasslands to the west, monster mountains to the south and only one seacoast. Peaceful has worked out great for them. Hostile may not work so good in the long run because their geographic position isn't that great. That is why I say their is nothing rational in their actions. It is emotional and dangerous.

We have the best geographic position on the planet. Fronting 2 oceans, multiple ports and all our hemispheric neighbors are either friendly or of little consequence.

slapout9

06-09-2011, 05:54 PM

carl

06-09-2011, 06:48 PM

Slap:

Are you trying an analog to the old human bait trick "There he is Carl! Chase him!"? OK, off I go.

The prime thing is China can be rich and secure, and all their neighbors can be rich and secure without everybody fighting. That is a truth that will eventually win out if it is given time. The time may not be there because the CCP is feeling stroppy and finds it emotionally appealing to shove folks around right now. So, how do we get time for them to grow up a bit?

We do that the old fashioned way, building friendships and alliances with all those other countries. And then standing by them. Stop being so darned understanding about Chinese aggressiveness. Call it what it is, a police state trying to have its way by force. At the same time keep up the trade, cultural and tourist intercourse we have with China and increase it if possible. It is all standard stuff but it requires a little confidence in who you are.

Now if we do that, and do it consistently for a few decades, we present the Chinese with something like the obverse of "death by a thousand cuts", sorta "frustration by always having your toes stubbed". They meet resistance when pushing out a little then draw back. Time passes and hopefully CCP guys who are more interested in the welfare of the average Chinese, which will increase with each peaceful year, than in making their mark in history with a conquest or two, come to power. Time is the key.

slapout9

06-09-2011, 07:11 PM

Are you trying an analog to the old human bait trick "There he is Carl! Chase him!"? OK, off I go.

carl,No trick just a question(s). I think our most serious threat(s) are South of the Border and our Economy. But, basically you believe in the Navy's Maritime strategy proposal?

carl

06-09-2011, 08:18 PM

Steve Blair

06-09-2011, 09:08 PM

Slap:

I don't know what the Navy is proposing. i do think we are a maritime power foremost. If we forget and neglect that, we're done for.

The Brits are a maritime power too. Unfortunately, they seem to have forgotten that.

Concur with the maritime power statement. And this becomes quite obvious if you look at defense spending and other things prior to World War II. I don't think it's any coincidence that our best-known defense thinker happens to be a navy guy named Mahan. China's position is better suited to defensive warfare, IMO. If they were to get too aggressive they'd run into issues.

Backwards Observer

06-10-2011, 05:42 AM

Somewhat off topic, but God Bless the Dalai Lama, uh, that is... ah hell, you know what I mean.

Beijing reviles the Dalai Lama and frequently denounces him, alleging that he wants independence for Tibet.

When asked if China was the enemy, the Tibetan spiritual leader demurred.

“Not China. Some hard-liner Communists. They really brought a lot of suffering,” he said.

But the Nobel peace laureate said the solution was not to hate them back.

“I myself deliberately visualized them and practiced tolerance,” he told reporters.

He said he tries to take “their anger, their jealously, their suspicion … then give them, through visualization, give them compassion, forgiveness…. That kind of practice (doesn’t) help to solve the problem, but that practice is immense help to maintain my peace of mind.”

Dalai Lama Sez China Not His Enemy (http://www.tibetsun.com/archive/2011/06/09/dalai-lama-says-china-is-not-his-enemy/) - Tibet Sun - June 10, 2011

Backwards Observer

06-10-2011, 06:31 AM

One of the things people should weigh more heavily in this is the importance of emotion as a driver in China's actions.

So true. A shallow, self-involved and somewhat hysterical emotionalism often blinds China to the faults that seem so obvious to others. Fortunately, most other nations base their statements and actions entirely on well-informed, rational and balanced analysis. China would do well to take note.

Backwards Observer

06-10-2011, 07:06 AM

18-Hole Diplomacy and Its Discontents:

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday called for the drafting of a “code of conduct” for retired generals after a former general on a visit to China was quoted as saying that the Republic of China (ROC) Army and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are both “China’s army.”
Retired generals should put the interests of Taiwan above all, present a transparent itinerary and exercise prudence when visiting China, Presidential Office spokesman Fan Chiang Tai-chi (范姜泰基) quoted Ma as saying at the Presidential Office.
“Retired generals are not government officials, but their words and actions remain very sensitive ... If the media reports are true, then the [general’s] comments went against national policy and should be condemned,” Fan Chiang said.

Ma calls for 'code of conduct' for retired generals (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/10/2003505410) - Taipei Times - June 10, 2011.

***

The comment by ROC's AF General Hsia Ying-chou (here) has caused a firestorm in the Republic of China. What else you are going to do after 18 holes of golf?

"Hsia Ying-chou, a retired air force general and former president of National Defense University, was reported to have said on June 5 in China that no distinction should be made between the Republic of China (Taiwan) Army and the People's Liberation Army (PLA) of China since they were both "China's army."

Civil "Golf" War Part II (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/06/civil-golf-war-part-ii.html) - China Defense Blog - June 9, 2011.

***

A 'certain kind' of fire drill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_fire_drill) - Wikipedia

Ray

06-10-2011, 07:39 AM

Though it was not agreed in another thread that the US has interest in containing China and instead it was emphasised that it was in the US interest that China should grow. It was also debunked that the South China Seas is of no interest to the US. However, going by the posts here itself, it appears that indeed the growth and actions by China seriously jeopardises the US interests in the Asia Pacific region.

By geography, China is better placed in Asia, but the geostrategic compulsions places the US interests a few notches higher. If for nothing else, the rise and modernisation of China and its Armed Forces will leave the US vulnerable from the Pacific end. In WWII, Japan did not have the power projection capability to knock at the Pacific coast of the US, but the manner in which China is modernising the PLAAF and PLAN, it could be within China's reach.

Cynical and brazen as it may sound, but Han culturalism is a very potent force that unites the Han Chinese the world over. A visit to forums would indicate how Chinese origin non PRC posters react to anti Chinese posts. This proves the point. The manner in which Han Chinese (to include those holding non PRC citizenship) all over the world united against the opposition along the Olympic Flame route is another case in point as an indicator how local Chinese would react to any anti China activity by other nations pursuing their own national interests. Therefore, suffice it to say, leaving the Pacific unchallenged is not conducive for the US.

It is also correct that the US is no longer the unchallenged power that it was, owing to various factors. However, one does not see the US abdicating her pristine position anywhere around the world. In fact, it is parcelling out its 'power projection' activities to willing partners as in Libya and elsewhere to save on costs in terms of money as also in terms of spilling American blood (which has a serious domestic repercussion).

The prolonged Obama visit to Asia was also perfunctorily rejected in the other thread when it was suggested that it was basically to build bridges and concretise the ‘containment of China’. Notwithstanding, there is a school of thought in India that India has sold itself out to the US. I cannot comment on that, but what is observed is that there is a lot of military cooperation going on and more are on the cards. There is also a change in the Indian Armed Forces inventory that is moving West and the US is taking the chunk of the Defence Budget. It is also interesting to note that after Obama’s visit to India, Chinese media went bonkers about US plans to contain China. Some wonder how? And some also wonder why the senior military and political personage visited Vietnam soon after Obama visited India and why the Indo Vietnamese cooperation has seen a spurt in activities.

It is also a moot point as to why China has suddenly gone easy with India on her diplomatic snubs that were coming fast and thick after the Obama's visit?

LawVol

06-10-2011, 11:15 AM

slapout9

06-10-2011, 03:50 PM

carl or anybody that wants to. Do you really think that if push came to shove the US would go to war with China over Taiwan?

carl

06-10-2011, 05:40 PM

Slap:

If you are asking for prognostication, I don't know. Much would depend on who comprises the political leadership of the US and the other states. I don't know.

If you are asking should we, I am assuming we let things get to a state where the Chinese felt confident enough of the outcome to make the play. In that case, if we didn't risk it, we might be surrendering the entire western Pacific to the Chinese to do with as they pleased. That includes Japan, Australia, the Philippines and New Zealand. The Indians might check out on us too. If people object to the size of the defense budget now, their eyes will pop out of their heads when they see military spending quintuple after a defeat like that.

The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.

It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.

Backwards Observer

06-10-2011, 08:27 PM

More from the Dalai guy:

THE Dalai Lama, after a lifetime of struggles against China's government, sees hopeful signs of change in the world's biggest dictatorship.

The spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhists says he hears more voices for freedom in China and its repressiveness "cannot last forever". He even sees encouraging signs for the future of China's policy in Tibet, the homeland he fled as a youth in the face of the Chinese takeover.

China's repression can't last sez Dalai Lama (http://www.smh.com.au/national/chinas-repression-cant-last-dalai-lama-20110610-1fxb9.html) - Sydney Morning Herald - June 11, 2011.

***

Air Force general says controversial thing approved by party:

A Chinese two-star general has warned his conservative Communist Party masters and firebrand People's Liberation Army colleagues that China must either embrace US-style democracy or accept Soviet-style collapse.

As officers of similar rank rattle their sabres against US aircraft carriers in the Yellow and South China seas, General Liu Yazhou says China's rise depends on adopting America's system of government rather than challenging its dominance off China's eastern coast.

''If a system fails to let its citizens breathe freely and release their creativity to the maximum extent, and fails to place those who best represent the system and its people into leadership positions, it is certain to perish,'' writes General Liu Yazhou in Hong Kong's Phoenix magazine, which is widely available on news stands and on the internet throughout China.

China must reform or die (http://www.smh.com.au/world/china-must-reform-or-die-20100811-11zxd.html) - Sydney Morning Herald - Aug 12, 2010.

Same Air Force General thinks PLA should shrink ground component, sees 'world in a grain of sand':

Back in August 2010, Lt General Liu Yazhou, the Political Commissar (PC) of the PLA's National Defense University caused a stir by proclaiming that China must reform or die.

Fast forward to now -- writing for the latest edition of the China Brief, Dr Zhang, associate professor in the Department of Leadership and Strategy at the Air War College (USAF), predicts that he is inline as the next Political Commissar of the entire PLAAF. If Dr Zhang's prediction is correct, expect to see a different PLAAF five years from now under General Liu's new leadership.

"As early as 2000, Lt General Liu Yazhou proposed that Chinese military authorities consider reorganizing the PLAAF into functional air commands by separating the air force from the PLA military region (MR) system to become a true independent service. [...] His advocacy for eliminating the ground force dominated military system, however, has received little support from the PLA military establishment."

Criticizing the Chinese...will get you promoted. A follow up on the career of Lt Gen Liu Yazhou (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2011/06/criticizing-chinese-governmentwill-get.html) - China Defence Blog - June 4, 2011.

LawVol

06-12-2011, 06:54 AM

The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.

It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.

I don't think this is really that remarkable. It's realism, pure and simple. If things go south between China and Taiwan, the US should assess the situtaion at that time, account for long-term fallout, and then act (or not). The US, like any nation, should do what is in its best interests. It may be that you are absolutely correct and that "abandoning a free nation" would present to many negatives. However, the situation could very well be one in which supporting Taiwan could pose significant long-term drawbacks or short-term issues we can't handle. In that case, I would hope our leaders would do what is best for us, not Taiwan or anyone else.

I do, of course, agree that we shouldn't let things get to that point.

Ray

06-12-2011, 09:07 AM

Is China Trying to Bankrupt US?

June 09, 2011

Does a cash-strapped US face a Cold War redux as China encourages it to ramp up defence spending? Boosting alliances is the way to respond, says Brad Glosserman.

One popular narrative credits the end of the Cold War to a US strategy to bankrupt the Soviet Union. Well aware of the advantage conferred by its superior economic performance, Washington pushed Moscow into a military competition that drained the USSR of its resources. In this narrative, US President Ronald Reagan’s push to create a missile defence system – realistic or not – was the straw that broke the Soviet back.

Are Chinese strategists pursuing a similar approach to the United States? Is Beijing pushing US buttons, forcing it to spend increasingly scarce resources on defence assets and diverting them from other more productive uses? Far-fetched though it may seem – and the reasons to be sceptical are pretty compelling – there is evidence that China is doing just that: ringing American alarm bells, forcing the US to respond, and compounding fiscal dilemmas within the United States. Call it Cold War redux....

China is trying to shape that strategy – not just by playing down its potential to threaten the United States but by playing up some of its capabilities. That’s one way to read China’s January 2007 anti-satellite test or the test of the stealth fighter in January of this year just as Gates was visiting China. China is trying to make its capabilities, no matter how nascent or premature, the focus of US planning and forcing the US to respond.

While this theory – that China would highlight its own threat to force a US response – sounds far-fetched, it seems to be working. There’s mounting concern in the defence community over China’s deployment of an aircraft carrier and its anti-access area denial strategy. That’s reasonable: hysteria and dire warnings about a transformation of the regional balance of power are not....................

Most important, the United States must better leverage its strengths, in particular its relationships with allies, friends and partners.

Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners – in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.

http://the-diplomat.com/2011/06/09/is-china-trying-to-bankrupt-us/

The Chinese modernisation of its armed forces and it growing economic clout indeed places China in a comfortable position.

The provocations in the South China Seas maybe for genuine economic reasons, as also to send alarm bells ringing with its consequences.

The current economic state of the US does not encourage a 'race' and yet the US interests has to remain shored up.

Alliances and relationships have to be organised so that the responsibility is shared, but such alliances and relationship should have a sound footing and not be applicable on merits on a 'case by case' basis.

Dayuhan

06-12-2011, 12:18 PM

The most remarkable thing to me is we are discussing abandoning a free nation that has been allied with us for over 60 years to an aggressive police state.

It might be wise to recall that the discussion is assuming a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assuming that the US will abandon Taiwan. That's a rather hypothetical discussion on multiple levels.

It will be tragic if we allow things to get to a state where we would even be confronted with the decision.

Why would anyone assume that what the US "allows" or doesn't allow will determine what state of affairs emerges between China and Taiwan?

carl

06-12-2011, 01:05 PM

Backwards Observer

06-12-2011, 02:54 PM

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

Assuming she ever gets operational, using what you know of US tactics and capabilities...if you wanted to sink the Chinese aircraft carrier, how would you do it and what would you use? [...] Obviously a nuke could also do it.

How Would You Sink The Shi Lang? (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/04/how-would-you-sink-shi-lang.html) - Information Dissemination - April 15, 2011.

Ray

06-12-2011, 03:24 PM

This is nothing at all new... the dispute is old and the US position is as well. The US considers the Spratlys to be disputed territory, not an integral part of the Philippines... which makes sense, because deciding these disputes is not in any way up to the US. Given this, Chinese military action in the Spratlys is not regarded as an attack on the Philippines and would not trigger the mutual defense pact. Again, this has been the US position for ages, and comes out every time the issue comes up, as it has done periodically for decades.

There's a big difference between being willing to protect allies from actual attack on their territory and taking a blanket position of support that actually encourages allies to take an unnecessarily bellicose stance that could provoke a conflict that would benefit nobody. I don't see that kind of common sense as a disincentive to anyone who wants a mutual defense relationship with the US.

The armed forces of the Asia Pacific countries can only offer token resistance to China, hence China’s writ will run with Asia Pacific countries merely as bystanders. In short, they have no options. At best, they can sue for Peace on China’s terms.

The US on the other hand, has her national interests in the Asia Pacific region. In this connection this thread is pertinent:

Alliances and relationships are force multipliers. The more tightly integrated the US and its allies, the more convincing the signal to potential adversaries that the United States is committed to the defence of those partners – in other words, it strengthens our deterrent. And that is the most important element of our security strategy in the Asia Pacific.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=122429#post122429

If Alliance and Pact Partners of the US, who have no military clout, find the US allowing them to succumb to China’s pressure tactics, then the Alliance and Pact becomes redundant and useless.

If in their time of need, the US does not show some sort of solidarity with them, then such Pacts with the US would remain suspect and it would not be surprising if such countries wonder if there is any guarantee that the US will honour its commitment or fight shy that it would go against US' interests.

If one observes the US Pacts from the Third World perspective and not from the US perspective, Pakistan, which was in the CENTO and SEATO, has felt let down by the US when the push came to shove. Even now, when Pakistan’s very existence depends on US finance and military assistance, they are very wary of the US. On the other hand, China, without doing as much as the US, is assisting Pakistan in key areas of concerns, riding at times against the tide of international opinion. It is obvious, that China is being perceived as 'a friend in need, is a friend indeed'. This is not lost of the Third World countries.

Observe the situation of Taiwan. One never knows when, where and which side the cat will jump. A sense of deep insecurity. It is not material whether there is One China policy or Two China policy. The US had always charged itself with the defence of Taiwan, come what may. Now, it is ‘iffy’.

Philippines has been left on the limb. I am not too sure if they have a Defence Pact with the US or not. It is obvious they feel that they have been let down if one goes by statement of its government.

What may appear as common sense to the US wherein US interest overrides Pact/ Alliance obligations, such common sense remains obviously a disincentive for Third World countries to enter into Pacts and Agreements.

It would not be a strange if one is wary of ‘fair weather friends’, more so, when faced with a totally disproportionately strong adversary breathing down the neck.

Backwards Observer

06-12-2011, 03:40 PM

The armed forces of the Asia Pacific countries can only offer token resistance to China, hence China’s writ will run with Asia Pacific countries merely as bystanders. In short, they have no options. At best, they can sue for Peace on China’s terms.

Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?

Ray

06-12-2011, 03:57 PM

Ray, do you think India would go to war with China to protect Taiwan or any other Asia-Pacific country? As a close neighbour, wouldn't it be common sense to do so?

India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.

Backwards Observer

06-12-2011, 04:13 PM

India does not have a military alliance or Pact with any country and hence, I presume, it will just be a bystander.

In Afghanistan, India should show more than platonic interest, but then not much can be expected of the Indian Govt.

Ray, thanks for replying. Do you think a military alliance between the US and India would be a potent enough deterrent to China? What are your feelings on the likelihood of such an alliance/pact from the Indian side?

jcustis

06-12-2011, 05:47 PM

It is interesting that you posted this up. I can't recall the article, but there was something recently that Chinese business interests want to open an economic zone with the US.

Moderator adds: It was Boise, Idaho in Post 37. in the China & South China Sea thread.

I think we would be wise to look back a little bit at our own history towards the tail end of the Cold War, with the old nemesis Soviets,

Fuchs

06-12-2011, 06:02 PM

I don't think that the Chinese are that aggressive towards the US.
They would have many better approaches available, and there's little to no evidence that they're using them:

# covertly lobby in the U.S. congress for additional expenses (not for public infrastructure investments or DoD, of course)
# push the U.S. into another war like Iraq
# attempt to break up U.S.-Japanese cooperation to the point that Marines withdraw from Okinawa
# attempt to have the U.S. give up Taiwan (which is after all quite irrelevant unless you really, really want to have a good Taiwanese graphics card in your PC)
# increase Chinese cultural influence and perception in the U.S. to a point where Taiwan and Tibet become invisible

So far the F-22 export ban and end of production, small wars focus, low U.S. savings rate and overemphasis of private consumption, budget-breaking tax cuts, Iraq War and Taiwanese economic integration with Chinese mainland seem to be the only major actions that play into the PRC's hand.
All of them can be explained without PRC influence in the shadows.

AdamG

06-12-2011, 07:29 PM

A very knowledgeable colleague – Michael Richardson – published this article in several Asian and Australian publications. An interesting twist in the “energy race”, which is maybe more interesting than the often cited but never materialized “arms race”

http://hdff.org/2011/06/01/beijing-brings-out-the-big-rig-in-energy-race/

carl

06-13-2011, 06:24 AM

Carl, if this is the case, why not base some nuclear weapons on Taiwan and start them off with developing their own deterrent program? Surely it wouldn't be a big deal. Galrahn at Information Dissemination is already thinking of flipping a nuke at the Shi Lang.

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

LawVol

06-13-2011, 06:35 AM

Lawvol & Dayuhan:

If it comes to abandoning a free nation, if it does come to that, it will be a most remarkable thing. I don't mind getting high sounding even if others roll their eyes when I do, but if the nation of Lincoln were to throw out a nation that has been allied to us and a nation that reflects our values as best as may be approximated in the far east, that would be a huge thing and we wouldn't be much to look at in the mirror anymore. We may get a short term benefit from that but we would have lost something of the spirit that we may never get back again. Not to mention anybody with any sense wouldn't line up with us ever again.

I do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings. Again, I would do what is best for America just like the Lincoln you invoke. Below is a quote demonstrating his realist thinking given his desire to do what was in the interests of preserving the Union. He also demonstrates a difference in his personal thinking and his realist thinking.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

Ray

06-13-2011, 06:47 AM

So what's Vietnam, the Philippines,Taiwan,and Malaysia done for the United States lately? I just saw on the news that some Congressman went to Iraq and told their president that since things are going so well over there now they can start paying us back for the war like President Bush said they would. He was asked to leave Iraq! Point being we don't get any respect in the world because we are willing to fight and pay for others people's problems. If China wants to drill of the coast of VIETNAM:eek: for oil....hey good for them!

Though dated, may help:

U.S. Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific Region
January 22, 2007
Bruce Vaughn
Analyst in Southeast and South Asian Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division

East Asia is rapidly changing, largely due to the rise of China which is fueled
by China’s impressive economic growth. China’s new economic clout is giving it new power and influence in the region. Many Asia-Pacific analysts and observers, both in the region and in the United States, feel that the United States is preoccupied in the Middle East and as a result is not sufficiently focused on the Asia-Pacific at a critical point in the evolution of what may prove to be a new era in Asia.

China is the only power that is presently thought capable of becoming a peer competitor of the United States. To many the overwhelming challenge is the need to try to shape the global and regional geo-strategic and economic environments to encourage and facilitate China’s peaceful and constructive evolution as a great power.

There is concern by some that a policy towards China that assumes China will become a threat to the United States and its interests in Asia will become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

That said, many feel that a strategy that hedges against the possibility that China’s rise is less than peaceful and cooperative is a prudent course of action.....

Some alliances have proven to be more resilient and adaptable in adjusting to evolving challenges than others. Several factors appear to be linked to the durability of America’s alliances in Asia, including common perceptions of threat, shared strategic objectives, diplomatic attention, shared values, and common history.

A better understanding of the disposition of America’s forward deployed force structure, alliance ties, defense partners, and working relationships in Asia in the context of U.S. strategic priorities and shifting geopolitical realities can inform
assessments of the future direction of American strategic posture in the region.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33821.pdf

Backwards Observer

06-13-2011, 06:49 AM

That would be too strong a step. The CCP would go absolutely ape no matter how compelling the logic of the thing. Taiwan doesn't need our help to make one of those things. They could probably whip one up pretty quick but I doubt they ever would. Besides even if they did, they never could make enough of them to really be a deterrant (sic) given the size disparity between the two states. One of the things that helps keep the peace is the polite fiction, so far, that both places are the same country even though they are not but they someday will be. Nukes on Taiwan would upset the charade.

People may roll their eyes at my cynicism, but if human nature is anything to go by, the charade will drag on until mainland China becomes a democracy. Then the mainlanders will vote some guy in who promises to reunify Taiwan by force.

Ray

06-13-2011, 06:52 AM

do not argue that I would abandon Taiwan at this time, I only say that if it is in America's interests to do so at some point, I would do so. You may have already made up your mind that sticking with Taiwan no matter what is in America's interests (an admirable position by the way). I prefer to leave room for future developments since I cannot possibly know what the future brings.

We are a realist thinking nation and so are the others. Slapout's post shows this with respect to Iraq. Idealism just causes problems IMO.

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

Backwards Observer

06-13-2011, 07:13 AM

Jaw jaw better than war war (for now):

Given China's increasing power and economic security, dealing with the Communist nation poses a "big challenge" for the United States, former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday.

Kissinger: China poses 'big challenge' for U.S. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/12/kissinger.china/index.html?hpt=hp_c2) - CNN - June 12, 2011.

***

US Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee, has warned China not to interfere in Taiwan’s presidential election and promised to support Taiwan’s democracy in every way she can.

US lawmaker warns China on Taiwan (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2011/06/13/2003505643) - Taipei Times - June 13, 2011.

***

BEIJING - A deadly killer jet that can take on the most advanced miliary fighters of the world's sole superpower. A behemoth "ship" under construction that will project the military power of the "Middle Kingdom" further off its coast. An army of cyber hackers ready to do all the havoc on the Internet.

These days, news stories by some Western media about China's military strength tend to play up its increasing size and menacing potential. Some Western observers have tried to hint to readers that something "big and evil" is fast evolving in China.

Crunch myth about China's military threat (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/13/content_12682375.htm) - China Daily - June 13, 2011.

Ray

06-13-2011, 07:34 AM

China will always downplay that it is a threat to any country, far or near.

That is how she has been able to achieve her 'Peaceful Rise'.

Now, it is China to show a bit of flexing her muscle, passing it off as merely a tired arms flayed yawn!

War is not the answer. Containment is!

LawVol

06-13-2011, 07:36 AM

Just the reason why the Third World is chary about any Pact or Alliances with the US.

There is good reasons to suspect that the US will abandon the Third World country with total disregards to the Pact/ Alliance obligations.

If the US is ready to abandon countries that have some understanding with the US at will, then what's the good reason to take umbrage with what Iraq has done? They, I presume, are safeguarding their own interests.

True enough. However, remember that if the US can break alliances, so can other nations. Nations do what they believe to be in their own interests. Iraq is a perfect example. Despite feeding off the American defense department for their security needs for over half a century, and thereby supporting their social programs, some EU nations chose to oppose American intervention in Iraq. Although they certainly made a legal argument (a correct one IMO) to support their opposition, they acted in their interests and used law as a tool for justification. Kosovo shows a willingness to ignore international law when it serves their interests, so we know this opposition wasn't a stand on principle.

Backing out of an alliance or not giving the full measure certainly involves many considerations. The long term ramifications are part of that calculation. However, even considering the fallout, it may still be in our interests to do our own thing. BTW, I never expressed umbrage at what Iraq did in Slapout's reference. :) However, even if I did it would still be consistent with my argument. I can understand the rationale for another country breaking an "agreement" or acting in contravention to our interests, but I don't have to like it.

Ray

06-13-2011, 09:14 AM

Check how Russia and China managed/ manages their unofficial alliances.

You will note the difference and to which side the not powerful Third World would like to align with.

Right now, they want to align with the West. However, if the West is unreliable, then why not seek a reliable friend?

And if they move there, where will the US be?

That is why the US has to ensure that they are reliable.

Who loses most? The US or the Third World countries?

US has missed out on rock solid alliances, inspite of great assistance, because they appear arrogant and they mix with the elite and abandon at the earliest compared to the other so called superpowers.

China's 'friendship' is without strings attached. They make friends with the Devil itself. The US acts pious and behaves otherwise with not only string attached, but slowly push countries into vassalage.

Check out Pakistan, notwithstanding big talk of Pakistan.

Backwards Observer

06-13-2011, 09:28 AM

It is not what those countries have done for us lately, it is what they can do for us in the future. Take a look at the map, if we told those countries to go pound sand, they would be forced to make an accommodation with China, most certainly including basing rights for them and none for us. That would make it impossible, impossible to prevail in any kind of conflict with China. That being the case, Japan and South Korea would be forced to go over and the Aussies would mandate Mandarin studies from the second grade onward. And that would just be the beginning.

Two views from Austria, dang, I mean Australia:

THERE is an almost mathematical elegance to Ross Babbage's vitally important new paper, Australia's Strategic Edge in 2030, to be published on Monday.

The veteran defence analyst wants Australia to do to China what China is doing to the US. China recognises that it could never defeat the US in a full-on, force-on-force conflict. But it can make it incredibly costly and dangerous for the US to operate its military in the western Pacific.

China achieves this by adopting "asymmetric" warfare. Asymmetry simply means big versus small. Asymmetric warfare is a way for the weaker party in a conflict to inflict crippling costs on the strong party.

China is doing this to the US through cyber warfare, space warfare, submarines and missiles. The Chinese strategy is called anti-access area denial. It is aimed at destroying US computer-based capabilities through cyber warfare. It is aimed at destroying US satellites through space warfare.

[...]

Already, Australia is in direct range of many Chinese weapons, so the PLA's expansion directly affects the defence of continental Australia.

While Babbage's report is very sobering, it is hardly as if the Americans are asleep while all this Chinese military activity is going on.

The Americans are developing their own air-sea battle plan that would seek to wipe out many of China's capabilities at the start of a conflict.

Time to beat China at its own game (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/time-to-beat-china-at-its-own-game/story-e6frg6zo-1226000381520) - The Australian - Feb 5, 2011.

***

It makes sense for Australia to develop constructive defence engagement with China, as I have long argued. Australian forces are less likely to find themselves confronting Chinese forces (whatever opinion polls might imply) than working alongside them, for instance in counter-piracy or disaster relief operations. So it makes sense for each side to forge a practical understanding of how the other operates.

It is also precisely because of the anxieties about how China will use its power that we ought to get to know the PLA up close. Channels of communication and so-called 'confidence building' measures (CBMs) between the Chinese military and their counterparts in the US, Japan and India are weak to non-existent.

Australia-China Defence ties: Beyond the hype (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2011/04/29/Australia-China-defence-ties-Beyond-the-hype.aspx) - The Interpreter - April 29, 2011.

Johannes U

06-13-2011, 05:13 PM

Gonna be interesting to read about his ideas, views...

Will keep you posted (it's only 500 pages :rolleyes:)

Dayuhan

06-13-2011, 09:52 PM

Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion but it is still remarkable that we are having it. Would we be even having the same discussion if the country in question were Australia?

But why are we having the discussion in the first place? Does anyone really think a Chinese attack on Taiwan is imminent or probable? Given the double hypothetical involved - assume a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assume a US abandonment - the discussion honestly seems too abstract to mean much.

The implicit and explicit backing of the US is the only thing that has kept Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP, the only thing. The attitude of the US is the critical factor in the state of affairs between the two states. As it changes, so does that state of affairs.

May have been true at points past, but at this point the huge risks to China of upsetting an economic applecart that has done them rather well is at least as great a restraining factor as any threat of US military action.

This entire discussion seems characterized by an assumption that "the Chinese" are some sort of monolithic and inherently aggressive mass, and that they are only the immediate threat of American force restrains from boiling forth and conquering all around them. I've seen no mention at all of China's internal political dynamics, which are at least as important to this equation as anything the US does, and very little effort to actually understand what goes on out in this part of the world. Are we assuming an "enemy" that must be "contained" and "deterred"? If so, why?

Dayuhan

06-13-2011, 10:22 PM

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/manila/local-news/2011/06/14/lawmakers-call-repeal-us-philippines-treaty-160990

For perspective, these guys are from the knee-jerk anti-American left side of the fence and would seize on any excuse to scream for withdrawal from security arrangements with the US, or from any arrangements with the US.

If in their time of need, the US does not show some sort of solidarity with them, then such Pacts with the US would remain suspect and it would not be surprising if such countries wonder if there is any guarantee that the US will honour its commitment or fight shy that it would go against US' interests.

Let's not exaggerate, please. Nobody is under attack and there is no "time of need" at hand. This jockeying and jostling has been going on for years, and the US position has always been that it can exert influence most effectively by not directly taking sides. The US line is and has always been "the concerned parties need to resolve this through negotiations", not "the Spratlys belong to the Philippines". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

On the other hand, China, without doing as much as the US, is assisting Pakistan in key areas of concerns, riding at times against the tide of international opinion. It is obvious, that China is being perceived as 'a friend in need, is a friend indeed'. This is not lost of the Third World countries.

I don't think anyone in the Third World has any illusions about China being a reliable ally or China acting in any way other than that which advances their immediate perceived interests. They do see advantage in being able to play the Chinese off against the Americans and vice versa. There's no loyalty or friendship in any of these relationships, just mutual utility... and everyone involved knows it.

Observe the situation of Taiwan. One never knows when, where and which side the cat will jump. A sense of deep insecurity. It is not material whether there is One China policy or Two China policy. The US had always charged itself with the defence of Taiwan, come what may. Now, it is ‘iffy’.

Nobody knows if the cat will jump at all, or if it will need to. The Taiwanese don't really seem all that insecure, nor do I think they should be.

Philippines has been left on the limb. I am not too sure if they have a Defence Pact with the US or not. It is obvious they feel that they have been let down if one goes by statement of its government.

The Philippines has not been left on a limb. The defense pact requires the US to defend the Philippines if the Philippines is attacked. It does not require the US to side with the Philippines in territorial disputes. Since the Philippines has not been attacked, there's nobody out on a limb.

Thar she Blows!

Very unlikely that any blowing will come out of a US/Philippine naval exercise, unless of course some of the US sailors get ashore. There will be ritual protests from the Chinese, they may sail around a bit themselves, everyone will wave their flags and rattle their sabers, then they will all go home and in a while they will do it all over again.

My own concern over China revolves not around the threat of a continued Chinese economic rise and subsequent aggression, but around the very real possibility of a significant economic collapse, which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. It sounds strange, but in many ways US and regional interests are best served by a prosperous, growing China that grows ever more dependent on a globally interlinked economy than by a constrained, contained, and likely rather angry China.

Again, without looking at China's internal politics there's really not much point in trying to look at China's external policies. If US military posturing and aggressive comments end up empowering the Chinese factions we least want to see empowered, they really aren't doing any good.

carl

06-14-2011, 01:10 AM

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 04:44 AM

A view from an Indian analyst:

It is extremely unlikely, but let’s say the fragrance of Jasmine flowers wafts across the Great Wall and perfumes China’s Han heartlands. A post-revolution China could take many forms, but let’s say that it turns into a democracy while retaining its existing international boundaries. Let’s set aside these two big “if's” for a moment and ask what such a scenario would mean for India.

Nitin Pai: What if China becomes a democracy? (http://business-standard.com/india/news/-if-china-becomesdemocracy/429175/) - Business Standard (India) - March 21, 2011.

(hat tip to the men from the intrepid Interpreter (http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/))

Ray

06-14-2011, 05:26 AM

But why are we having the discussion in the first place? Does anyone really think a Chinese attack on Taiwan is imminent or probable? Given the double hypothetical involved - assume a Chinese attack on Taiwan and assume a US abandonment - the discussion honestly seems too abstract to mean much.

May have been true at points past, but at this point the huge risks to China of upsetting an economic applecart that has done them rather well is at least as great a restraining factor as any threat of US military action.

This entire discussion seems characterized by an assumption that "the Chinese" are some sort of monolithic and inherently aggressive mass, and that they are only the immediate threat of American force restrains from boiling forth and conquering all around them. I've seen no mention at all of China's internal political dynamics, which are at least as important to this equation as anything the US does, and very little effort to actually understand what goes on out in this part of the world. Are we assuming an "enemy" that must be "contained" and "deterred"? If so, why?

The short answer is that if the 'enemy' is not 'contained' or 'deterred', there will come a time when the 'enemy' will become too powerful to handle and then it will be a case of crying over spilt milk.

China is still a closed society and hence open sources have very little to educate one on the internal political dynamics of China (and even that could be biased) and hence there is hardly any scope for debate.

For perspective, these guys are from the knee-jerk anti-American left side of the fence and would seize on any excuse to scream for withdrawal from security arrangements with the US, or from any arrangements with the US.

Maybe true.

Yet, it could be a gentle reminder that the US must honour its commitments because if they don't, then nations will have to find new 'friends' and that may not be to the US interests in this region.

Let's not exaggerate, please. Nobody is under attack and there is no "time of need" at hand. This jockeying and jostling has been going on for years, and the US position has always been that it can exert influence most effectively by not directly taking sides. The US line is and has always been "the concerned parties need to resolve this through negotiations", not "the Spratlys belong to the Philippines". That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It is not exaggeration at all.

One does not wait till one is under attack to be 'saved'. For if that were to be the case, it would be real unwise in my opinion.

Foreign Policy and Strategy and activities thereof of the present is not a knee jerk reaction. It is well thought out and with an eye on the future.

Negotiations are undertaken from a position of strength and not from a position of weakness. For if it were to be from a position of weakness, then one would have to succumb to whatever is being dictated. Therefore, steaming of a few warship does have its effect. Remember the USS George Washington and it effect?

USS George Washington: What message does it send to North Korea?

USS George Washington is being sent to the Yellow Sea after North Korea attacked South Korea's Yeonpyeong island.

By dispatching the USS George Washington, Obama is telling North Korea and its ally China that belligerent behavior will bring consequences.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1124/USS-George-Washington-What-message-does-it-send-to-North-Korea

And for this very reason, the US has agreed to hold naval exercises with the Philippines.

It is being done to send a message. I am not too sure if this was done before or after the Philippines claimed that the Mutual Pact was merely becoming a piece of paper!

I don't think anyone in the Third World has any illusions about China being a reliable ally or China acting in any way other than that which advances their immediate perceived interests. They do see advantage in being able to play the Chinese off against the Americans and vice versa. There's no loyalty or friendship in any of these relationships, just mutual utility... and everyone involved knows it.

Pakistan is in the Third World. They have no illusion that China has stood by Pakistan even when morally it was incorrect to do. The two new nuclear plants for Pakistan is a case in point which has not gone totally as per the protocol necessary for establishment of nuclear plants and non proliferation IIRC.

There is no permanent friends or enemies, but there is permanent interests. The interest of the countries on the rim of China is that it maintain status quo. What options do these countries have? It is a question of the US or China.

Observe Myanmar. They have found China to be a reliable ally, who has stood by its side through thick and thin, as has Pakistan. Therefore, it would be incorrect a surmise that none in the Third World finds China not a reliable ally. And neither is playing America against China!

Nobody knows if the cat will jump at all, or if it will need to. The Taiwanese don't really seem all that insecure, nor do I think they should be.

I would not speculate on that.

However, as an average man, I can say that I would be highly uncomfortable if I know that there is another nation which is very powerful that claims my land and my sole support is acting very 'iffy'.

The Philippines has not been left on a limb. The defense pact requires the US to defend the Philippines if the Philippines is attacked. It does not require the US to side with the Philippines in territorial disputes. Since the Philippines has not been attacked, there's nobody out on a limb.

Territorial disputes lead to acrimony and acrimony leads to wars.

I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.

The US troops, missiles etc were positioned all around Europe during the Cold War. By the logic given, the US should have waited for a War with the USSR before putting its Pact to test.

One has to understand what is meant by 'a threat in being'.

Very unlikely that any blowing will come out of a US/Philippine naval exercise, unless of course some of the US sailors get ashore. There will be ritual protests from the Chinese, they may sail around a bit themselves, everyone will wave their flags and rattle their sabers, then they will all go home and in a while they will do it all over again.

That is just what it intends it to be.

Sabre rattling and each goes back to their own corners.

My own concern over China revolves not around the threat of a continued Chinese economic rise and subsequent aggression, but around the very real possibility of a significant economic collapse, which could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness. It sounds strange, but in many ways US and regional interests are best served by a prosperous, growing China that grows ever more dependent on a globally interlinked economy than by a constrained, contained, and likely rather angry China.

How does a prosperous, growing China help?

Already China is already rocking the US boat.

Check this thread
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13525

Again, without looking at China's internal politics there's really not much point in trying to look at China's external policies. If US military posturing and aggressive comments end up empowering the Chinese factions we least want to see empowered, they really aren't doing any good.

It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.

We maybe underestimating the US. I maybe wrong, but the encouragement being given to China to convert rapidly to capitalism is a good ploy to encourage a greater divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the 'rural' and 'urban' divide. It is already creating problems in China. Recently we had the riots in Inner Mongolia and now the latest being the unrest in Zengcheng in Guangdong province.

Underlying frustrations at social pressures including rampant food prices, house price inflation and corruption among local officials have also stoked the outburst of anger.

China has about 145m rural migrant workers. Though many of them have gained better wages and treatment in recent years, the gap between them and established urban residents remains stark, feeding anger at discrimination and ill-treatment. A pregnant stallholder assaulted by guards would embody that resentment in the eyes of many migrants.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/253705fe-9609-11e0-8256-00144feab49a.html#axzz1PDbIgN30

Further, one is well aware of the CCP's hatred towards 'foreign' religions and yet Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter's veteran correspondent John Allen

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IH07Ad03.html

One is well aware of Pope John Paul II's work in the defeat of Communism. When 'Solidarity' was underground in the 1980s, it was in churches, in the basement of churches that you could buy or get underground newspapers, have free discussions, meet artists who were not approved by the government and then came the deluge!

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

And China has 'house' Churches that are beyond the CCP control.

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 06:36 AM

Further, one is well aware of the CCP's hatred towards 'foreign' religions and yet Christianity is the fastest growing religion in China.

Ray, if I've read your comments correctly, you seem to feel that the West behaves somewhat 'arrogantly' towards the so-called third world. Do you think a democratic, Christian mainland China (Taiwan is predominantly Chinese Folk Religion/Buddhist/Taoist) would conduct itself in a less 'arrogant' manner than they do at present, or than the West in general for that matter? Personally, from a simplified historical perspective, I don't think the West behaves any more arrogantly than any other culture that might find itself standing on top of the corpse heap when the hurlyburly's done. A case could probably be made that the US is by comparison one of the least arrogant in a long line of such 'victors'.

Also, since we're talking hypotheticals, if internecine religious conflict broke out between mainland Chinese Catholics and Protestants, who would the US support? Or would they just bomb all of them and let God sort them out?

Ray

06-14-2011, 08:17 AM

Ray, if I've read your comments correctly, you seem to feel that the West behaves somewhat 'arrogantly' towards the so-called third world. Do you think a democratic, Christian mainland China (Taiwan is predominantly Chinese Folk Religion/Buddhist/Taoist) would conduct itself in a less 'arrogant' manner than they do at present, or than the West in general for that matter? Personally, from a simplified historical perspective, I don't think the West behaves any more arrogantly than any other culture that might find itself standing on top of the corpse heap when the hurlyburly's done. A case could probably be made that the US is by comparison one of the least arrogant in a long line of such 'victors'.

Also, since we're talking hypotheticals, if internecine religious conflict broke out between mainland Chinese Catholics and Protestants, who would the US support? Or would they just bomb all of them and let God sort them out?

Do my posts appear that I find the West 'arrogant'? If that is the impression, then I apologise since that was not the intention.

My posts were merely to indicate the events as seen from the non Western perspective since most of the views here are from the western perspective. The non western perspective is important since the 'hot spots' of the world are in areas having different cultures than what is there in the West.

Even my views may not entirely be the same as what the reality is since I am looking at issues through the subcontinental lens. But hopefully it would be closer than the western view.

Further, most of us are keen that the US does not lose out in this race. Not that there is some serious dislike for China, it is just that China's imperialist past does make one uncomfortable, more so, as they tend to twist history to suit their ends as in Tibet or even Shaksgam, the area in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir which was ceded by Pakistan to China.

US is not 'arrogant'. It is just that the US wants to impose its will forgetting the sensitivity to local realities. In the long run, it puts those in government in a tight spot as they are seen to be always giving way to the US perspectives at the cost of the local requirements.

I don't think that even in the middle future the control by the CCP will be lost. Since not much is known about the actual situation in China, I would not like to second guess beyond that. There are troubles brewing, but it could be mere local discontent and more on the lines of the discontent because of the economic divides.

The rapid growth of Christianity has got China worried and of that there is no doubt. They are afraid that it would pollute the Han culture and the Theory of Legalism, which has held China in good stead so far.

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 08:18 AM

One is well aware of Pope John Paul II's work in the defeat of Communism. When 'Solidarity' was underground in the 1980s, it was in churches, in the basement of churches that you could buy or get underground newspapers, have free discussions, meet artists who were not approved by the government and then came the deluge!

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

And China has 'house' Churches that are beyond the CCP control.

According to the CIA World Factbook, Taiwanese religious statistics are as follows:

mixture of Buddhist and Taoist 93%, Christian 4.5%, other 2.5%

Would anyone care to speculate why Taiwan, free for decades, and as some might have it, the Asian country most reflective of US/Western values, has not experienced a 'deluge' of conversions to Christianity?

CIA World Factbook - Taiwan (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html)

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 08:28 AM

Does my post appear that I find the West 'arrogant'? If that is the impression, then I apologise since that was not the intention.

[...]

US is not 'arrogant'. It is just that the US wants to impose its will forgetting the sensitivity to local realities. In the long run, it puts those in government in a tight spot as they are seen to be always giving way to the US perspectives at the cost of the local requirements.

Ray, thanks. Sorry if I misunderstood your original comments about the West. What you say makes sense. Do you think China is arrogant? If my questions are becoming wearisome, please don't hesitate to not reply.

Ray

06-14-2011, 09:00 AM

Ray, thanks. Sorry if I misunderstood your original comments about the West. What you say makes sense. Do you think China is arrogant? If my questions are becoming wearisome, please don't hesitate to not reply.

Are you a Chinese or a Tibetan?

Your earlier avatar was Tara as is portrayed by Tibetans.

Hans have always been historically arrogant. :p

Han Chinese culturalism arose to distinguish between the culture of the Han, or inner people (nei ren) and the ‘barbarians’, the outer people (wei ren).......

The Chinese distinguished between ‘raw barbarians’ (shengfan) or the unassimilated people and the ‘cooked barbarians’ (shufan) or assimilated taxpayers who enjoyed the fruits of Chinese culture. For example, Han Chinese officials separated the ‘cooked’ Li of the coast of Hainan, who enjoyed the benefits of Chinese civilisation, from the wild ‘uncooked’ Li of the central forests, far from the influences of Han culture.......

Barbarians were given generic names in the Chinese classics and histories: the Yi barbarians to the east, the Man to the South, the Rong to the west and Di to the north (when westerners arrived by sea, they were officially designated until the late 19th century as Yi). Until the 1930s, the names of outgroups (wai ren) were commonly written with an animal radical: the Di, the northern tribe, were linked to the Dog; the Man and the Min of the south were characterised with reptiles; the Qiang was written with a sheep radical. This reflected the Han Chinese conviction that civilisation and culture were linked with humanity; alien groups living outside the pale of Chinese society were regarded as inhuman savages. To be labelled a barbarian was a cultural rather than racial distinction.......

Han Culturism (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=IOM8qF34s4YC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=An+Ethnohistorical+Dictionary+of+China+cooked+a nd+raw+barbarian&source=bl&ots=mURxvoIaZ_&sig=93JJ6FL_WlepvEozYpRGjvV_HBk&hl=en&ei=a0qCSsamM8uGkQWq99naCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

And therefore, is it a surprise that China claims that it has 92% of its population as Hans?

Most of the so called Hans are assimilated people by coercion, humiliation, inter marriage and so on that occurred when the people of the Middle Kingdom (zhong guo), which began by ruling the Central Plain (zhongyang) invaded the South, West and so on and converted them as Hanhua.

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 09:18 AM

Are you a Chinese or a Tibetan?

Your earlier avatar was Tara as is portrayed by Tibetans.

Hans have always been historically arrogant. :p

Check this out:

Han Culturism (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=IOM8qF34s4YC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=An+Ethnohistorical+Dictionary+of+China+cooked+a nd+raw+barbarian&source=bl&ots=mURxvoIaZ_&sig=93JJ6FL_WlepvEozYpRGjvV_HBk&hl=en&ei=a0qCSsamM8uGkQWq99naCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

My ethnic background is Hakka Chinese and Anglo-Australian. Both are known throughout the world for their superlative humility. As a so-called 'half-breed', my personal humility is of the most profound order.

My experience with the Han people suggests that what may be construed as arrogance is perhaps a woefully misinterpreted joie de vivre.

My use of the avatar function may be charitably described as loosely contextual.

Thanks for asking.:)

Ray

06-14-2011, 09:41 AM

Hakka means 'guest'! ;)

But great cuisine!

Not half breed, since that is not polite. Mixed parentage would be appropriate.

Actually, the people of mixed parentage (like the Anglo Indians and there are many in Australia) are tougher and go getters. And have no hang ups.

Good chaps actually.

My school days were with these chaps and I miss them.

Backwards Observer

06-14-2011, 10:04 AM

Hakka means 'guest'! ;)

Tell me about it. 'Always the bridesmaid, never the bride'...or something.:rolleyes:

Dayuhan

06-15-2011, 06:17 AM

There are a lot of hypotheticals in this discussion. I think it useful nonetheless for the same reason that playing the "what if" game is useful for individuals. If you look far ahead at what may happen you might be more inclined to do the little things now that might keep what may happen from happening.

Basing your actions on assumptions about other people's intentions or motivations may not always accomplish that, especially if those assumptions are invalid. Make the wrong assumptions and you can encourage, rather than avoid, the things you don't want to see happen.

One of those little things is sailing around with the Filipinos and rattling sabres. If we were to let fear of empowering aggressive Chinese elements keep us from doing that, that would be the greater danger. They are acting quite aggressive on their own hook now. Looks like probing for weakness to me. If they find it, maybe they go further.

Are they really acting so aggressive? How aggressively did the US act in Iraq, just for comparison? Bit of the pot calling the kettle black going on here?

I actually don't think that our exercises with the Filipinos will matter much in longer-term Chinese calculations. They still have to ensure that they cannot be closed out of the South China Sea and the associated straits, which are more important to them economically than the Gulf of Mexico is to the US. They'll still feel the need to rally some nationalism among the populace when the economy fluffs a bit, which it will. They still aren't going to upset the applecart from whence they eat, unless there's a significant economic upheaval and associated unrest, which could easily empower the most aggressive and reactionary factions... probably the single event the US, SEA, and the Taiwanese would most want to avoid.

It is true that it would be economically foolish for China to attack Taiwan and it will get increasingly so as the years pass. But how many wars have been started in the face of economic ruin? Lots. That doesn't seem to matter much when emotions run high. In that case, the only thing that keeps Taiwan out of the clutches of the CCP is us.

Do you assume that efforts to fire up emotion among the populace necessarily reflect the sentiments of the leadership, on either side? I see no reason to assume that Chinese leaders are going to risk provoking what they most fear - internal unrest - by potentially upsetting an economy that's a lot more fragile than most Americans realize.

I once discussed this with a Taiwanese engineer who was working for the Acer plant in Subic. His prescription was to ignore the loud talk, let the status quo go on, and then in 20 years when the old guys who grew up on violence die off, let the young guys who grew up on business sort out accommodations.

I really don't thunk a full on mainland invasion of Taiwan is at all likely, and the cost and risk to the mainland of such a venture would be huge. You're looking at an amphibious operation on the scale of the Normandy landings, in the age of satellite surveillance and surface-to-surface missiles. You'd need some really good reasons to bite that one off.

I do agree with you that continued Chinese prosperity is the best thing for all in the long run. Our problem, I think, is keeping the those who want a conquest on their cv down until that dawns on all the senior Chinese leadership.

You don't think it's dawned on them already? Do you really see them conquering anything? Don't get me wrong, even the business-oriented factions in China, who at the moment hold the balance of power (being the ones who generate the money) see military force as an essential element in protecting China's commerce. Like senior leaders elsewhere, they are also under pressure to show that they're tough, and they cannot allow anyone to think they are afraid of the US, though they are. Does that mean they're on the verge of conquering someone?

I think one reason nobody comments on Chinese internal politics is that no one knows what the heck they are. Bob Woodward isn't invited in and the CCP pr dept isn't a big help. Who actually has any idea what transpires?

Not the US, certainly, but not as opaque as, say, North Korea. If you follow it you learn some things.

The short answer is that if the 'enemy' is not 'contained' or 'deterred', there will come a time when the 'enemy' will become too powerful to handle and then it will be a case of crying over spilt milk.

Why do you assume an "enemy", rather than another nation whose interests at times diverge from yours, though at times those interests are very similar.

Yet, it could be a gentle reminder that the US must honour its commitments because if they don't, then nations will have to find new 'friends' and that may not be to the US interests in this region.

What commitments are we talking about here? The US has never committed itself to defend the Philippine claim to the Spratly islands. I also wouldn't worry at all about these countries finding other friends. The more they look to the rest of Asia for support and alliance, the better.

We assume way too much. Too often we assume, say, that a Chinese aircraft carrier is aimed at the US, or conquering Taiwan. I think it's far more likely to be deployed someday in support of some Chinese-supported government in Africa that's threatened by insurgents with nationalization in mind... don't you see that coming in the Chinese future? I suspect, in short, that the Chinese would employ such gear in much the same way the Americans have, though the Americans of course have far more of it. Isn't there something a bit odd about Americans stressing over the prospect of 1 Chinese carrier, given the size of the US force?

One does not wait till one is under attack to be 'saved'. For if that were to be the case, it would be real unwise in my opinion.

And for this very reason, the US has agreed to hold naval exercises with the Philippines.

It is being done to send a message. I am not too sure if this was done before or after the Philippines claimed that the Mutual Pact was merely becoming a piece of paper!

The exercises are held on a regular basis and were scheduled long before any of this broke out. If none of this had started, of course, nobody would notice the exercises.

Dayuhan

06-15-2011, 06:19 AM

Pakistan is in the Third World. They have no illusion that China has stood by Pakistan even when morally it was incorrect to do. The two new nuclear plants for Pakistan is a case in point which has not gone totally as per the protocol necessary for establishment of nuclear plants and non proliferation IIRC.

Observe Myanmar. They have found China to be a reliable ally, who has stood by its side through thick and thin, as has Pakistan. Therefore, it would be incorrect a surmise that none in the Third World finds China not a reliable ally. And neither is playing America against China!

Myanmar hasn't the option of playing the US against China, but I don't think anyone in Myanmar is foolish enough to think China will be at their side "through thick and thin". China will support them as long as and to the extent that they perceive that support to be in their interest. They will dump Myanmar like a hot potato if they see it as in their interest to do so... and everyone knows it. Not like the regime in Myanmar has a lot of options for foreign support.

Pakistan certainly plays the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and anyone else they can off against each other. They've done it for a long time.

I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.

I am sure the US nor Philippines want a war before their Defence Pact is put to test.

A defense pact by definition can't be put to the test unless there's something to defend against. Since the pact does not obligate the US to support the Philippines in fights over disputed territory (the Philippines has long-running disputes with China and Malaysia), any such support would be unrelated to that pact in any event.

The US troops, missiles etc were positioned all around Europe during the Cold War. By the logic given, the US should have waited for a War with the USSR before putting its Pact to test.

One has to understand what is meant by 'a threat in being'.

I understand that some are assuming a "threat in being". I'm less convinced that the assumption is valid. Piling troops and missiles into SE Asia would I think be completely counterproductive, even if you could find SEA countries willing to host them, which is most unlikely.

How does a prosperous, growing China help?

Already China is already rocking the US boat.

I don't see any US boats being rocked. Little ripples in a very big pond, yes, but no US boats rocking. A prosperous, growing China, economically integrated with the world and dependent on trade, has a lot more to lose than an isolated, "contained" China.

If the US, or for that matter ASEAN, really wanted to show anger at Chinese aggressiveness economic moves aimed at China's exports would be way more effective than saber-rattling that everyone knows will go nowhere.

It maybe true that US posturing would close ranks in China, but it will also give hope to many who are 'oppressed'.

Are you so sure of that? Even oppressed people will rally behind their government if they perceive disrespect or bullying or threat from the outside, and nationalism is strong in China even among those who detest their government. Has it not always been so? Have not governments threatened with domestic discontent always tried to direct that outside, even if an "enemy" has to be fabricated? Why make that easier for them?

I maybe wrong, but the encouragement being given to China to convert rapidly to capitalism is a good ploy to encourage a greater divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots' and the 'rural' and 'urban' divide. It is already creating problems in China. Recently we had the riots in Inner Mongolia and now the latest being the unrest in Zengcheng in Guangdong province.

I don't think US encouragement was a significant driver of China's conversion to capitalism... but yes, they are well and truly riding the dragon now, and it's going to be an interesting ride. Never forget that the greatest concerns of China's leaders, and the threats they most fear, are internal, not external. Americans sailing carriers around is a lot less scary to them than the prospect of losing a major export market, having to shut down factories, and suddenly seeing a bunch of angry citizens in the streets... not out in the rural fringe but in the coastal heartland. They know exactly how fast that can spiral out of control.

The Chinese leaders know very well that they sit on a huge real estate bubble. They know their banks are carrying gargantuan amounts of crony loans backed by vaporous assets, if they are backed by anything. Americans may not ask how fast the percentage of Chinese growth driven by speculative, rather than productive, activity has grown, but Chinese leaders know.

Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.

In short, it is essential to encourage the external dynamics with the internal dynamics to ensure a 'healthy' balance where China prospers but is not in a position to 'threaten'.

Who exactly is supposed to "ensure a "healthy" balance"? I don't think the US is in a position to do so, or to complain that China should not be in a position to threaten anyone. Should the US surrender their capacity to threaten? If they do not, why should they complain about others having a small fraction of that capacity?

carl

06-15-2011, 01:23 PM

Dayuhan:

Basing actions upon your read of somebody else's intentions or motivations lacking any evidence is unwise. That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment. The Chinese are building a big navy that will be capable of doing a lot. They are currently acting aggressively toward several nations that really pose no threat at all to them. From that evidence, I believe it is wise to conclude they are up to something. They are building a big navy and they have been shoving others around, those are facts not assumptions.

They really have been acting that aggressively. The "yea, but what about what we did in (select the historical event you like the most)" argument is a distraction. It has nothing to do with what the Chinese naval forces are doing now and what it might mean in the future. Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black it is black and you should note that when planning your kitchen decor.

You mention the Chinese have to keep themselves from being closed out of the South China sea. When have they EVER been threatened with being closed out of the South China sea? There is no threat there. If they aren't responding to a threat, and they're not, it is logical to assume they are building up to make a threat.

It is no comfort to me when you say they will gin up something abroad to distract the people from troubles at home. That is a scary thing to contemplate when they are building up the navy and air force and shoving around little countries. That kind of thing tends to get out of hand, because of...emotions, which was the point I made many posts ago. Any conflict in the western Pacific makes no economic sense for anybody, but emotions tend to drive things where they shouldn't go, as I said before. There is no rational, externally driven reason for the Chinese to be doing what they are doing now and it concerns me.

Me and that Taiwnese engineer think the same. Note my posts #49 and #95.

There is no need for the mainland to make an opposed landing on Taiwan to take the island. If we cut the Taiwanese loose they would have to capitulate.

I think personal ambition can trump actions that are good for the country, and a conquest or two is really good for a guy's cv, especially if it helps distract the populace from internal woes. Chasing the Viets and the Filipinos out of the South China sea and having the U.S. Navy stand idly by while they did it would be quite a feather in somebody's cap. I believe, judging by their actions, that has dawned on some of them and they are willing to chance it for personal gain. If they were able to pull it off, it is that much more likely they would try it again.

I think we have something to be concerned about.

Backwards Observer

06-15-2011, 04:01 PM

The Murdoch hath spoken:

Hoping the record-breaking Chinese revenues from "Avatar" can be replicated many times over, Rupert Murdoch urged China on Sunday to further open up its movie market.
On Saturday, Murdoch and his Chinese-born wife, Wendi Deng, walked the red carpet at the Shanghai International Film Festival's opening ceremony alongside Hollywood stars including Susan Sarandon and Matt Dillon. A day later, pageantry gave away to tough talk.
Speaking before a panel discussion on film finance attended by a top Chinese film regulator, the Australian-born media mogul said despite rapid growth, the Chinese cinematic market was still underdeveloped.
Murdoch said the numbers were breathtaking: Chinese box office revenues surged from just $150 million in 2005 to $1.5 billion last year, and a theater-building rush is expected to raise the number of movie screens in China from the current 6,200 to 20,000 in five years. Most of the new screens use 3-D compatible digital projectors.
"The truth is there is no more exciting market in the world than this one," he said.

Murdoch urges China to open up its film market (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/06/12/murdoch-urges-china-open-its-film-market.html) - Jakarta Post (AP article) - June 12, 2011.

***

Brief article on China's party structure:

In theory, institutions like the party's central committee and the politburo are forums where compromises are reached. Yet these institutions have adapted to different purposes. They were originally designed to send down the orders of one autocrat and a small group of his assistants, as it was with Joseph Stalin in Russia or Mao, or to call on a collective responsibility with unanimous consensus over single decisions, as occurred with Deng Xiaoping.

Many roads, and no collective mind (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MF16Ad01.html) - Asia Times - June 16, 2011.

Ray

06-15-2011, 06:23 PM

[QUOTE]

Why do you assume an "enemy", rather than another nation whose interests at times diverge from yours, though at times those interests are very similar.

I don't assume anyone as the 'enemy'. I merely used your words.

What commitments are we talking about here? The US has never committed itself to defend the Philippine claim to the Spratly islands. I also wouldn't worry at all about these countries finding other friends. The more they look to the rest of Asia for support and alliance, the better.

If the US did not, do let us know what they committed themselves to with the Pact?

If you will forgive me, I will be very surprised if a Pact is area specific i.e. I will defend you only in Area A but not in Area B.

We assume way too much. Too often we assume, say, that a Chinese aircraft carrier is aimed at the US, or conquering Taiwan. I think it's far more likely to be deployed someday in support of some Chinese-supported government in Africa that's threatened by insurgents with nationalization in mind... don't you see that coming in the Chinese future? I suspect, in short, that the Chinese would employ such gear in much the same way the Americans have, though the Americans of course have far more of it. Isn't there something a bit odd about Americans stressing over the prospect of 1 Chinese carrier, given the size of the US force?

An aircraft carrier or a Fleet is positioned to take care of strategic interests in a certain geographical beat.

One has to assume because forewarned is forearmed.

The Chinese aircraft carrier is just the beginning.

Do let us know what is the Chinese intention with the single aircraft carrier since apparently you seem to know.

The exercises are held on a regular basis and were scheduled long before any of this broke out. If none of this had started, of course, nobody would notice the exercises.

The schedule is too close to reality to be believed!

Any links to show that it was schedule long time back?

Ray

06-15-2011, 06:41 PM

Myanmar hasn't the option of playing the US against China, but I don't think anyone in Myanmar is foolish enough to think China will be at their side "through thick and thin". China will support them as long as and to the extent that they perceive that support to be in their interest. They will dump Myanmar like a hot potato if they see it as in their interest to do so... and everyone knows it. Not like the regime in Myanmar has a lot of options for foreign support.

Myanmar has been supported for a real real long long time by China.

Do show one instance, China has dropped a 'friend' like a hot potato! They have not even dropped such a rogue state as North Korea!

Pakistan certainly plays the US, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and anyone else they can off against each other. They've done it for a long time.

Pakistan does not play anyone one against anyone.

They merely squeeze all with good blackmail!

I don't see that what is "morally incorrect" has anything to do with this at all.

You don't?

Circumventing Nuclear non Proliferation is correct, right?

A defense pact by definition can't be put to the test unless there's something to defend against. Since the pact does not obligate the US to support the Philippines in fights over disputed territory (the Philippines has long-running disputes with China and Malaysia), any such support would be unrelated to that pact in any event.

A defence pact is not merely activated when attacked.

It is activated when there is a 'threat in being'.

I understand that some are assuming a "threat in being". I'm less convinced that the assumption is valid. Piling troops and missiles into SE Asia would I think be completely counterproductive, even if you could find SEA countries willing to host them, which is most unlikely.

I presume the US was spooked with the Russian missiles in Cuba and they overreacted to bring the world to the brink of a nuclear war?!!

I don't see any US boats being rocked. Little ripples in a very big pond, yes, but no US boats rocking. A prosperous, growing China, economically integrated with the world and dependent on trade, has a lot more to lose than an isolated, "contained" China.

Oceans have their origin in small springs!

Little ripples cause tsunamis.

The world has little too lose except shoddy cheap products.

If the US, or for that matter ASEAN, really wanted to show anger at Chinese aggressiveness economic moves aimed at China's exports would be way more effective than saber-rattling that everyone knows will go nowhere.

Since when has economic moves been productive.

How many economic sanctions have worked.

How come Myanmar still survives?

The real world is much different from the emotional one!

Are you so sure of that? Even oppressed people will rally behind their government if they perceive disrespect or bullying or threat from the outside, and nationalism is strong in China even among those who detest their government. Has it not always been so? Have not governments threatened with domestic discontent always tried to direct that outside, even if an "enemy" has to be fabricated? Why make that easier for them?

Ask Poland.

I don't think US encouragement was a significant driver of China's conversion to capitalism... but yes, they are well and truly riding the dragon now, and it's going to be an interesting ride. Never forget that the greatest concerns of China's leaders, and the threats they most fear, are internal, not external. Americans sailing carriers around is a lot less scary to them than the prospect of losing a major export market, having to shut down factories, and suddenly seeing a bunch of angry citizens in the streets... not out in the rural fringe but in the coastal heartland. They know exactly how fast that can spiral out of control.

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

The Chinese leaders know very well that they sit on a huge real estate bubble. They know their banks are carrying gargantuan amounts of crony loans backed by vaporous assets, if they are backed by anything. Americans may not ask how fast the percentage of Chinese growth driven by speculative, rather than productive, activity has grown, but Chinese leaders know.

The Chinese leaders know so much that there is desertification, droughts, starvation and now diverting waters up North without it being thought through!

Aggressive behaviour is often a sign of fear... and we shouldn't assume that American military force is what is feared.

Hardly a reason to lose one's balance.

I would be surprised if one does not fear the US military might.

Who exactly is supposed to "ensure a "healthy" balance"? I don't think the US is in a position to do so, or to complain that China should not be in a position to threaten anyone. Should the US surrender their capacity to threaten? If they do not, why should they complain about others having a small fraction of that capacity?

Healthy balance means allow prosperity, but contain military aggressiveness.

slapout9

06-15-2011, 07:15 PM

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

Ray, I am not sure they have chosen Capitalism, other than the the fact we(USA) are just useful idiots to them. Their economy is organized much more along the lines Marxism(not Communism there is a differance) than it is Capitalism.

Backwards Observer

06-15-2011, 07:59 PM

Interesting opinion on Marx by Erich Fromm:

It is hardly possible to talk about Marx's attitude toward religion without mentioning the connection between his philosophy of history, and of socialism, with the Messianic hope of the Old Testament prophets and the spiritual roots of humanism in Greek and Roman thinking. The Messianic hope is, indeed, a feature unique in Occidental thought. The prophets of the Old Testament are not only, like Lao Tzu or Buddha, spiritual leaders; they are also political leaders. They show man a vision of how he ought to be, and confront him with the alternatives between which he must choose. Most of the Old Testament prophets share the idea that history has a meaning, that man perfects himself in the process of history, and that he will eventually create a social order of peace and justice. But peace and justice for the prophets do not mean the absence of war and the absence of injustice. Peace and justice are concepts which are rooted in the whole of the Old Testament concept of man. Man, before he has consciousness of himself, that is, before he is human, lives in unity with nature ( Adam and Eve in Paradise). The first act of Freedom, which is the capacity to say "no," opens his eyes, and he sees himself as a stranger in the world, beset by conflicts with nature, between man and man, between man and woman.

Marx's Concept of Socialism (1961) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm) - marxists.org

***

Erich Seligmann[1] Fromm (March 23, 1900 – March 18, 1980) was a German-American Jewish social psychologist, psychoanalyst, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. He was associated with what became known as the Frankfurt School of critical theory.

[...]

The cornerstone of Fromm's humanistic philosophy is his interpretation of the biblical story of Adam and Eve's exile from the Garden of Eden. Drawing on his knowledge of the Talmud, Fromm pointed out that being able to distinguish between good and evil is generally considered to be a virtue, and that biblical scholars generally consider Adam and Eve to have sinned by disobeying God and eating from the Tree of Knowledge. However, departing from traditional religious orthodoxy, Fromm extolled the virtues of humans taking independent action and using reason to establish moral values rather than adhering to authoritarian moral values.

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason. However, Fromm distinguished his concept of love from unreflective popular notions as well as Freudian paradoxical love (see criticism by Marcuse below).

Erich Fromm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm) - Wikipedia

Dayuhan

06-16-2011, 12:09 AM

Basing actions upon your read of somebody else's intentions or motivations lacking any evidence is unwise. That is why you base your actions upon what they are capable of doing, will be capable of doing and what they are actually doing at the moment. The Chinese are building a big navy that will be capable of doing a lot. They are currently acting aggressively toward several nations that really pose no threat at all to them. From that evidence, I believe it is wise to conclude they are up to something. They are building a big navy and they have been shoving others around, those are facts not assumptions.

They really have been acting that aggressively. The "yea, but what about what we did in (select the historical event you like the most)" argument is a distraction. It has nothing to do with what the Chinese naval forces are doing now and what it might mean in the future. Sometimes when a pot calls a kettle black it is black and you should note that when planning your kitchen decor.

You mention the Chinese have to keep themselves from being closed out of the South China sea. When have they EVER been threatened with being closed out of the South China sea? There is no threat there. If they aren't responding to a threat, and they're not, it is logical to assume they are building up to make a threat.

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

It is no comfort to me when you say they will gin up something abroad to distract the people from troubles at home. That is a scary thing to contemplate when they are building up the navy and air force and shoving around little countries. That kind of thing tends to get out of hand, because of...emotions, which was the point I made many posts ago. Any conflict in the western Pacific makes no economic sense for anybody, but emotions tend to drive things where they shouldn't go, as I said before. There is no rational, externally driven reason for the Chinese to be doing what they are doing now and it concerns me.

You seem to be treating the current developments as something new. They aren't. This has been going on periodically for decades, and I see now reason to treat it any differently now than we have before. Ignoring it is a mistake, but blowing it out of proportion and treating it as a sign of imminent aggression is an equal mistake. Taking it too seriously, and showing too much concern, is as big a mistake as showing too little.

Again, we have to recall that what the primary disincentive to actual Chinese aggression (as opposed to jockeying for position on the periphery) is not US military force, but the likelihood that conflict would bring significant economic disruption, which the Chinese regime would probably not survive. Of course if that disruption occurs anyway, which is likely, a lot of things could happen, including an anti-capitalist backlash and a takeover by much more aggressive factions. Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

There is no need for the mainland to make an opposed landing on Taiwan to take the island. If we cut the Taiwanese loose they would have to capitulate.

Why?

Nobody's talking about "cutting the Taiwanese loose" anyway, so I don't see much point in hypothesizing over it. It's not an all-or-nothing situation, and shouldn't be; the degree of commitment and the level of visible action that's required or useful at any given point has to be assessed as the situation evolves.

I think personal ambition can trump actions that are good for the country, and a conquest or two is really good for a guy's cv, especially if it helps distract the populace from internal woes. Chasing the Viets and the Filipinos out of the South China sea and having the U.S. Navy stand idly by while they did it would be quite a feather in somebody's cap. I believe, judging by their actions, that has dawned on some of them and they are willing to chance it for personal gain. If they were able to pull it off, it is that much more likely they would try it again.

Again, I think you're overstating what's going on. It's nothing new, it's usually followed by rounds of negotiation and a whole lot of statements, then everyone goes home and stays clam a while until the whole thing flares again. Nobody's achieved a conquest or a great victory; it's just one more step in the process of jockeying around the periphery and seeing what can be gotten away with without significant economic repercussions.

I think we have something to be concerned about.

We always have something to be concerned about. That's cause for concern, not panic or hysteria, and responses have to be based on realistic assessments of problems and goals.

Backwards Observer

06-16-2011, 06:59 AM

Economist Book review of, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy by David M. Malone:

ONE day India will be a great power. Its demography, nukes and growing economy make that almost inevitable. Outsiders, especially in the West, promote its heft so it can serve as an emerging rival to China.

[...]

Yet, as David Malone clearly sets out in his brisk survey of its foreign policy, there is a long way to go before the Indian elephant is really dancing. Its international policy is still mostly reactive, incremental and without any grand vision. Its few diplomats are good, but terribly overstretched. The world’s biggest democracy is coy to the point of feebleness in promoting its values abroad. And its big but ill-equipped armed forces, perhaps the navy aside, trouble no military planners outside of South Asia.

It is easy to see why. India’s long history of being invaded, and its preoccupation with holding itself together as a viable, democratic state, have left it little scope for acting overseas. Indians, like Americans, can be insular, believing that their huge country is the centre of the world. Its few leaders who bothered seriously with foreign matters, notably Jawaharlal Nehru, the brilliant and charismatic first prime minister, fell into moralising about others’ wicked deeds and tried to avoid being embroiled in the cold war, but he did little to promote national interests.

Indian Foreign Policy: Hard Questions (http://www.economist.com/node/18802750) - The Economist - June 9, 2011.

Ray

06-16-2011, 07:08 AM

Contentions
Asia Looks to America as a Buffer Against the Power of China

There is tremendous fear in the U.S. that we will soon be eclipsed by China. That fear helps to explain myriad otherwise inexplicable phenomena such as the stunning success of Amy Chua’s “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother,” which suggests Chinese mothers have devised superior child-raising techniques soft American moms should emulate.

It is certainly legitimate to worry about China’s rise given how fast its economy is growing — along with its defense budget. But it is by no means inevitable that China will overtake us. There are still lots of obstacles in its path, ranging from chronic rural poverty to environmental degradation to — the biggest issue of all — the fundamental illegitimacy of its unelected government. Moreover, as China gets stronger, it also gets more assertive, and in the process alienates its neighbors, thereby driving them into our arms.

The latest evidence of this phenomenon is this Financial Times article: “Vietnam calls for U.S. aid in China spat.” .........

In that list is the makings of a potent alliance to hem in China and ensure that its rise really is “peaceful,”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/13/asia-looks-to-america-as-a-buffer-against-the-power-of-china/

US Reaffirms Asia Role

June 8, 2011

The United States’ medium- to long-term engagement throughout Asia, especially Southeast Asia, continues to be questioned by Asian nations. Clearly, the choices that the United States makes today have consequences for the future, as do the policies of Asian countries regarding the United States. Yet while many Asian nations obviously value the public goods and security commitments that the United States brings to Asia, questions remain over just how long the US can continue to do so.

At the Shangri-La dialogue held in Singapore at the weekend, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates outlined plans for more US cooperation throughout Southeast Asia. These initiatives range from deployment of US Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore as part of the US-Singapore Strategic Framework Agreement, to plans that include increased port calls, naval exercises, and multilateral cooperation with allies and partners throughout the region.........

The plethora of Asian states that welcome, and interact with, the United States military presence throughout Asia is impressive. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Vietnam and even Mongolia all lookToday, things aren’t so clear, not least because China’s intentions for its role on the global stage, and more importantly for its military in the Asia-Pacific region, remain unclear. to increased US military presence and/or cooperation to quietly hedge against possible Chinese domination throughout the region........

Today, things aren’t so clear, not least because China’s intentions for its role on the global stage, and more importantly for its military in the Asia-Pacific region, remain unclear. ..........

In some ways, Chinese public diplomacy surrounding its ‘peaceful and harmonious’ rise is similar to this fairy tale. The evidence speaks for itself, with the South China Sea being the most explicit example. Vietnam and the Philippines have both accused China within the past few weeks of aggressive behaviour that violates their interests and which is against the spirit of the 2002 Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. Chinese claims over this waterway have persistently been a regional bone of contention, with no resolution yet in sight, but regional concern growing.

Other examples are tied to the lack of transparency over Chinese military programmes. .....

http://the-diplomat.com/new-leaders-forum/2011/06/08/us-reaffirms-asia-role/

On the issue of US pushing countries around, it is true that countries do grudge being pushed around by the US.

However, the choice is being pushed around by the US or being swallowed by China since they claim parts of the neighbourhood in most countries on the periphery and 'amicably' settle the boundaries!

There is also the issues of 'values'. US values are closer to the values of the countries in Asia (which have emerged from colonialism) than Mainland Chinese values (Communist).

Ray

06-16-2011, 07:11 AM

Economist Book review of, Does the Elephant Dance? Contemporary Indian Foreign Policy by David M. Malone:

Indian Foreign Policy: Hard Questions (http://www.economist.com/node/18802750) - The Economist - June 9, 2011.

A good analysis.

ONE day India will be a great power.

Pragmatically seen, that day is too far away to even contemplate.

Let India first set her house in order first, and then we can think about it becoming a great power.

To be a great power, the foundations must be strong and not built on daydreams.

Ray

06-16-2011, 07:17 AM

Tell me about it. 'Always the bridesmaid, never the bride'...or something.:rolleyes:

The Chinese invasion, migrations, assimilations are too complex to know exactly.

The case, as some would say, the bridesmaid demanding that they are the real brides!!:p:D

Some claim that Hakka origin is from the Xiongnu nomadic people.

Backwards Observer

06-16-2011, 07:25 AM

To be a great power, the foundations must be strong and not built on daydreams.

You mean Like a Shakuntala thing? I'm just kidding.

Backwards Observer

06-16-2011, 07:27 AM

The case, as some would say, the bridesmaid demanding that they are the real brides!!:p:D

So you've met Hakka people before, I see. I want half! Also must give free gift!:) (Anecdote): I was at the hawker stalls with a relative and the noodle-seller lady started talking Hakka to us (which I don't speak). I asked my relative if the lady would give us a discount because we were all Hakka. He said, "You kidding? She'll charge us extra!" Maybe this is just Hakka humour, I don't know. Nee tung ai kong sen!

Ray

06-16-2011, 09:40 AM

So you've met Hakka people before, I see. I want half! Also must give free gift!:) (Anecdote): I was at the hawker stalls with a relative and the noodle-seller lady started talking Hakka to us (which I don't speak). I asked my relative if the lady would give us a discount because we were all Hakka. He said, "You kidding? She'll charge us extra!" Maybe this is just Hakka humour, I don't know. Nee tung ai kong sen!

You should see this:

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtbyVFLl_7U)

You mean Like a Shakuntala thing? I'm just kidding.

:)

Backwards Observer

06-16-2011, 10:38 AM

You should see this:

Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtbyVFLl_7U)

That's funny.

Example of Hakka bargaining:

Hakka: This one how much? $100? Hrm, I give you $40, also you give me (this other thing) free.

Shopkeep: Haiyah, cannot...cannot!

Hakka: Then don't want. (leaves)

[1 week later, same shop, same item.]

Hakka: I give you $42, but you also give me free (this other thing).

Shopkeep: Wah! No can...no can!

Hakka: Ok, $45 with free gift. Otherwise don't want.

Shopkeep: Too low. $88. Best price.

Hakka: Hmph. (leaves)

[3 weeks later, same shop...]

...you get the idea.

JMA

06-16-2011, 01:34 PM

Undermining the Chinese government is really not in our interest, given the likely alternative.

The likely alternative? You have provided no evidence that what you state is the likely alternative. Can you?

AdamG

06-16-2011, 02:01 PM

That's funny.

Example of Hakka bargaining:

Shopkeep: Too low. $88. Best price.

Hakka: Hmph. (leaves)

[3 weeks later, same shop...]

...you get the idea.

Hakka = Scots who eat more noodles than sheep. ;)

selil

06-16-2011, 03:33 PM

I don't have much to offer but this...

While in China last year half a dozen of my students were from Taiwan. The Chinese government was paying them a stipend and for their university education in full. They were very well treated.

I also saw one of the most gorgeous christian churches you could imagine on Dushu lake. Built for the expats and christian chinese.

FInal observation. It is all about the cranes. If you've ever traveled through south east China you know what I mean. The only thing more prevalent than cranes is television shows on the third kingdom.

carl

06-16-2011, 04:12 PM

Do you not see the inconsistency there?

Assume that the Chinese are looking at us exactly the same way that you want us to look at them. We have a very large navy, bigger than theirs by orders of magnitude. We have a tradition of pushing people around whenever it suits us to do so... how many people and countries have been pushed around by the US in the last 50 years, and how many have been pushed around by China? Why would they not see us as a threat, and why would they not beef up force and try to mark out territory - sort of the international equivalent of a dog pissing on trees - in response to that perceived threat? How do you think Americans would react if China declared that they had critical economic interests in the Gulf of Mexico, and was the dominant naval power there?

Nope. I don't buy it. As I have said before, we have never threatened to blockade or deny access to any sea to the Chinese, even when they were shooting at us. That has not happened and will not happen, unless, unless the Chinese were to try something hard on another country in the area. Then we would. So why would they be concerned about maintaining access to the sea in the face of the U.S. Navy unless they wanted to maintain access if they did try something hard. There is no extant threat to them. I am concerned they are thinking there will be in a few years because of what they might be planning to do.

The reason the Taiwanese would have to capitulate if we cut them loose is apparent with just a quick glance at the map and a thought to the relative size of the PRC and Taiwan economies. Taiwan's independence is entirely dependent on sea power. If you ain't got it, the island is untenable. Without us, there is not sufficient sea power to counter that of the mainland, hence Taiwan would have to surrender. If they resisted, it would be suicide. They could be blockaded unto starvation and that would be it.

More later. Must go now.

Dayuhan

06-16-2011, 10:25 PM

Nope. I don't buy it. As I have said before, we have never threatened to blockade or deny access to any sea to the Chinese, even when they were shooting at us. That has not happened and will not happen, unless, unless the Chinese were to try something hard on another country in the area. Then we would. So why would they be concerned about maintaining access to the sea in the face of the U.S. Navy unless they wanted to maintain access if they did try something hard. There is no extant threat to them. I am concerned they are thinking there will be in a few years because of what they might be planning to do.

What "will not happen" is not always clear to everyone. What we will not do may be as unclear to them as what they will do is unclear to us. What they know is that as of now we could shut their country down, top to bottom, in very little time and there's very little, if anything, they could do about it. That would reasonably make them nervous. Lots of other factors involved, of course, but we should never discount fear as a driver of aggressive behaviour, and it's worth working out what people are likely to be afraid of.

The reason the Taiwanese would have to capitulate if we cut them loose is apparent with just a quick glance at the map and a thought to the relative size of the PRC and Taiwan economies. Taiwan's independence is entirely dependent on sea power. If you ain't got it, the island is untenable. Without us, there is not sufficient sea power to counter that of the mainland, hence Taiwan would have to surrender. If they resisted, it would be suicide. They could be blockaded unto starvation and that would be it.

By that logic Cuba should have had to capitulate to the US the moment Russia cut them loose.

In any event, since nobody's seriously discussing cutting Taiwan loose and there's no immediate threat, it all seems like asking how many angels can foxtrot on a pinhead.

The likely alternative? You have provided no evidence that what you state is the likely alternative. Can you?

The likely alternative - or one likely alternative, if it sounds better - to a fall of China's current government would be a PLA takeover, with generals calling the shots instead of businessmen. That is not a certainty, of course: the future never is. There's even an outside long-shot chance that pro-democracy forces might prevail. But think about the possible consequences of a military takeover, and compare the strength of the PLA vs the pro-democracy forces... you want to place bets on that? The status quo is not ideal, but it's adequate. Given the potential for adverse unintended consequence, I wouldn't want to go rocking that boat at this point. It'll rock son enough of its own accord; the Chines economy is not nearly as strong as the uninformed make it out to be.

Dayuhan

06-16-2011, 10:35 PM

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/13/asia-looks-to-america-as-a-buffer-against-the-power-of-china/

Shouldn't be looking only at one side of the equation. Sure, countries like the Philippines will run to the US when China gets pushy on the periphery. They'll also quite happily cozy up to the Chinese if they feel like US military aid is les motivated than it was. They'll openly court Chinese investment and business links. It's simplistic to reduce this to "bad bully pushes little guys, who run to heroic big brother for protection". It's more about jostling for position, with everyone in the picture playing multiple games at the same time. We don't want to be pushed around, but we don't want to be played either, and overreacting will be as counterproductive as underreacting.

I have no problem at all with the US sailing a carrier through the China Sea, basing a couple of ships in Singapore, or holding an exercise. All part of the ritual, and generally expected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we're changing anything, or deterring anything, by doing that.

However, the choice is being pushed around by the US or being swallowed by China since they claim parts of the neighbourhood in most countries on the periphery and 'amicably' settle the boundaries

I don't see any reason to think that China wants to "swallow" the Philippines or Vietnam, which would be an expensive process with significant risk and little gain.

Dayuhan

06-16-2011, 11:12 PM

If the US did not, do let us know what they committed themselves to with the Pact?

If you will forgive me, I will be very surprised if a Pact is area specific i.e. I will defend you only in Area A but not in Area B.

They committed to defend the Philippines against attack. The Spratly Islands are not part of the Philippines, they're disputed territory. The US position, as it typically is in such cases, is that it does not support or oppose any of the competing claims to disputed territory, but strongly supports a negotiated solution.

An aircraft carrier or a Fleet is positioned to take care of strategic interests in a certain geographical beat.

One has to assume because forewarned is forearmed.

The Chinese aircraft carrier is just the beginning.

Do let us know what is the Chinese intention with the single aircraft carrier since apparently you seem to know.

Presumably to defend Chinese interests. It would be silly of us to view that purely in light of China/US relations. China has numerous interests that do not involve us at all.

Forewarned is forearmed, but seeing a ghastly threat in anything anyone does is a rather timorous stance, and is likely to get one into trouble. Neither is chest-thumping bluster a terribly viable response anymore, it's likely to get us more of what we don't want.

The schedule is too close to reality to be believed!

Any links to show that it was schedule long time back?

They do it every year. It's not a big deal, never has been. The Chinese always protest. It'a a bit of a ritual dance and it's been ongoing for ages; mostly nobody notices. it is of course possible that the Chinese timed their incursions to coincide with the exercise; to make it look like they can jerk the chain and elicit a response. Hard to know for sure, but I wouldn't want to assign too much importance to it.

Myanmar has been supported for a real real long long time by China.

Do show one instance, China has dropped a 'friend' like a hot potato! They have not even dropped such a rogue state as North Korea!

North Korea serves their interests; why would they drop them? It is of course true that the Chinese perception of self-interest is more consistent and longer running than the American; consequence of different political systems. That doesn't mean that Chinese "friendships" are based on anything but perceived self-interest.

Pakistan does not play anyone one against anyone.

They merely squeeze all with good blackmail!

Seems to me that the Pakistanis are ever so quick to get friendly with the Chinese or Russians when hey want something out of the US or are irritated with the US. Don't you think Pakistan sees advantage in being courted by both the US and China, and plays that rivalry to their advantage? It would be strange if they didn't, no?

You don't?

Circumventing Nuclear non Proliferation is correct, right?

They don't care if it's correct or incorrect, they're only asking if it's in their interests. The morality of it doesn't matter at all. The US has poured billions into Pakistan, despite their role in proliferation, and has supported many "immoral" states over the years. Morality matters not at all in these equations.

A defence pact is not merely activated when attacked.

It is activated when there is a 'threat in being'.

A threat to the Philippines, or a threat to the Spratly Islands? Two different things.

The pact does not dictate what the response to any given threat or perceived threat must be. That has to be determined at the time of the perceived threat, based on assessment of the perceived threat.

Oceans have their origin in small springs!

Little ripples cause tsunamis.

Earthquakes cause tsunamis.

The world has little too lose except shoddy cheap products.

Little to lose from what? Are you proposing to detach China from the world?

I wouldn't lock China into the "cheap shoddy products" niche. Lots of countries have held that spot and moved out of it, and the Chinese are moving through it rather quickly.

Since when has economic moves been productive.

How many economic sanctions have worked.

How come Myanmar still survives?

Imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is like banning a corpse from the dance floor. They have no economy worthy of the name, so the impact is minimal. An economy completely dependent on industrial exports and energy imports, requiring continuous growth to prevent popular unrest, is another animal completely.

You may know more of China than me. So what made China chose capitalism

Survival. The socialist ship was sinking and everyone could see it.

...and which companies from which country made a beeline post haste to the Chinese shores?

Many companies from many countries. Potential profit draws companies.

[/QUOTE]Healthy balance means allow prosperity, but contain military aggressiveness.[/QUOTE]

The US is not in a position to allow, disallow, or assure anyone's prosperity, and "containment" has to be scaled to the level of the threat, not the maximum extension of where a perceived threat might possibly lead under the worst possible circumstances.

carl

06-17-2011, 12:00 AM

What "will not happen" is not always clear to everyone. What we will not do may be as unclear to them as what they will do is unclear to us. What they know is that as of now we could shut their country down, top to bottom, in very little time and there's very little, if anything, they could do about it. That would reasonably make them nervous. Lots of other factors involved, of course, but we should never discount fear as a driver of aggressive behaviour, and it's worth working out what people are likely to be afraid of.

I suppose the history of the world since the end of the Second World War and the uses to which and not to which American sea power have been put may be unclear to them. I think not. I think it is perfectly clear to them as it is to everybody else out there. We ain't going to bother you if you don't bother us or our buddies. Which leads us back to the beginning, the only reason they could have for building up is if they have a thought of maybe bothering us or our buddies.

The crux of this disagreement is you trust them to act rationally and weigh the costs. I suspect they are motivated by emotion and the cost isn't that important.

By that logic Cuba should have had to capitulate to the US the moment Russia cut them loose.

In any event, since nobody's seriously discussing cutting Taiwan loose and there's no immediate threat, it all seems like asking how many angels can foxtrot on a pinhead.

By incomplete logic you would be incorrect. However you left out the part that we don't claim Cuba as part of the US. And you left out the part about how the Chinese Civil War ended. And you left out the part about how we didn't chase the Cuban army to that island from soutn Florida.

No there isn't an immediate threat. However, it is prudent to discuss threats that may appear in the future. How many angels on the head of a pin is idleness, discussing what the PRC is up to ref Taiwan, is prudent.

The likely alternative - or one likely alternative, if it sounds better - to a fall of China's current government would be a PLA takeover, with generals calling the shots instead of businessmen.

I rather doubt businessmen are running the CCP, which is running China. I think CCP politicos are running the CCP and they are a hard lot.

Dayuhan

06-17-2011, 01:47 AM

I suppose the history of the world since the end of the Second World War and the uses to which and not to which American sea power have been put may be unclear to them. I think not. I think it is perfectly clear to them as it is to everybody else out there. We ain't going to bother you if you don't bother us or our buddies. Which leads us back to the beginning, the only reason they could have for building up is if they have a thought of maybe bothering us or our buddies.

Was Saddam Hussein bothering us or our buddies in 2003?

How many times has the US used force against another country, overtly or covertly, since the second world war? How many of those times involved defending someone who was being pushed around? Let's not kid ourselves, we use force to advance our own perceived interests, just like everybody else, and our perception of our own interests is notoriously changeable.

The crux of this disagreement is you trust them to act rationally and weigh the costs. I suspect they are motivated by emotion and the cost isn't that important.

I don't fully trust the Chinese to act rationally, nor do I fully trust the US to act rationally. We are as emotion-drive as they are, and we're also driven by short-term political expedience and a fickle electoral cycle. If anything, they're more predictable than we are, medium to long term. I think the Chinese leadership weighs long term cost, benefit, and risk quite carefully... often more carefully than our leaders, preoccupied by domestic policy and electoral cycles, are likely to do.

By incomplete logic you would be incorrect. However you left out the part that we don't claim Cuba as part of the US. And you left out the part about how the Chinese Civil War ended. And you left out the part about how we didn't chase the Cuban army to that island from soutn Florida.

The US has a long tradition of using force (directly or by proxy) to get its way and to remove perceived enemies in Latin America... in fact we've more recent history of that than the Chinese do.

No there isn't an immediate threat. However, it is prudent to discuss threats that may appear in the future. How many angels on the head of a pin is idleness, discussing what the PRC is up to ref Taiwan, is prudent.

Have we any tangible evidence to suggest that the PRC is up to anything ref Taiwan?

I rather doubt businessmen are running the CCP, which is running China. I think CCP politicos are running the CCP and they are a hard lot.

Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Business has huge influence in China, and will as long as the economy is booming and the money is rolling in. A lot of the old politicos and the military chafe over that influence for sure, but as long as the money is flowing they have to deal with it... and the reality that messing with business is likely to generate a domestic explosion is all too evident to everyone in the picture. A successful Chinese business community gives China more capacity to cause trouble, but it also produces an interconnectedness and mutual dependence that creates a disincentive to major disruption.

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

carl

06-17-2011, 03:10 AM

Was Saddam Hussein bothering us or our buddies in 2003?

How many times has the US used force against another country, overtly or covertly, since the second world war? How many of those times involved defending someone who was being pushed around? Let's not kid ourselves, we use force to advance our own perceived interests, just like everybody else, and our perception of our own interests is notoriously changeable.

Let us confine ourselves to discussions of use of American sea power, especially against China, which we haven't used, even when they were shooting at us. This discussion is after all about the South China Sea. There is no threat to Chinese freedom of navigation. Actually given that we had been maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years prior to 2003, I'd say they had been bothering us, if only just a little.

Again, you use the "yea, well what about us?" argument. It is a distraction.

I don't fully trust the Chinese to act rationally, nor do I fully trust the US to act rationally. We are as emotion-drive as they are, and we're also driven by short-term political expedience and a fickle electoral cycle. If anything, they're more predictable than we are, medium to long term. I think the Chinese leadership weighs long term cost, benefit, and risk quite carefully... often more carefully than our leaders, preoccupied by domestic policy and electoral cycles, are likely to do.

You think they are or do, I don't.

The US has a long tradition of using force (directly or by proxy) to get its way and to remove perceived enemies in Latin America... in fact we've more recent history of that than the Chinese do.

You equated the PRC's desire to grab back Taiwan with our annoyance with Cuba. I pointed out that that was an invalid comparison and I stated why. You bring in the rest of Latin America, another use of "yea, well what about what we did?"

Have we any tangible evidence to suggest that the PRC is up to anything ref Taiwan?

They seem to get very upset when the Taiwanese do anything to that might lead to going their own way, they object to all arms sales, the first Sidewinder kill was by a ROC Sabre on a PLAAF MiG, they have fought often. There is lots of evidence there.

Remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

Remember also, he who wields the iron takes the gold. The CCP had the iron rod.

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

The CCP ain't gonna lose control anytime soon. They maintained it during the great dyings of Mao's time. I am worried about what I've been saying I'm worried about. That new found wealth making them cocky and prone to adventure, especially if they get to believing their own press releases as was mentioned by somebody else.

Dayuhan

06-17-2011, 03:51 AM

Let us confine ourselves to discussions of use of American sea power, especially against China, which we haven't used, even when they were shooting at us. This discussion is after all about the South China Sea. There is no threat to Chinese freedom of navigation. Actually given that we had been maintaining a no-fly zone over Iraq for 12 years prior to 2003, I'd say they had been bothering us, if only just a little.

Why should we confine ourselves to that extent? The Chinese aren't basing their estimates of America's will to use force to advance our interests purely on those criteria, they're looking at our behaviour across the world, the same way we look at theirs. The US does use force to advance its own perceived interests. It hasn't always done so with any rational or compelling reason (Iraq 2003 is but one example). That makes people nervous. Again, if you're assessing emotional motivations, don't disregard fear as one of them.

Again, you use the "yea, well what about us?" argument. It is a distraction.

It's a reminder that others don't necessarily see us the way we see ourselves.

You think they are or do, I don't.

Why not?

They seem to get very upset when the Taiwanese do anything to that might lead to going their own way, they object to all arms sales, the first Sidewinder kill was by a ROC Sabre on a PLAAF MiG, they have fought often. There is lots of evidence there.

Evidence of what? The Chinese have always felt the need to get upset whenever somebody reminds them of Taiwan's status, or emphasized Taiwan's status. They haven't shown any sign that they're really that committed to changing it, beyond words. Face-saving is an element there, always has been. Is anything up that hasn't been up for the last half-century or so?

Remember also, he who wields the iron takes the gold. The CCP had the iron rod.

It's not only about the existing gold, it's about the capacity to continue creating the gold, to keep the gold rolling in, to buy a pacified populace. Business has that capacity, the party doesn't (though business is of course a major presence and influence within the party).

The CCP ain't gonna lose control anytime soon. They maintained it during the great dyings of Mao's time. I am worried about what I've been saying I'm worried about. That new found wealth making them cocky and prone to adventure, especially if they get to believing their own press releases as was mentioned by somebody else.

The CCP may not lose control, but different people can gain control of the CCP. They may not be an improvement on what's there now.

I'm not saying these issues don't exist or don't deserve attention and concern. They have to be put in perspective and treated as what they are, though: one more step in a long-running game of push and shove. There's nothing new going on, no drastic change that requires a drastic response. Overreaction is not going to help, and puff and bluster may not be the most effective reaction.

Bill Moore

06-17-2011, 03:52 AM

Posted by Carl,

I'm not terribly worried that China will grow to the point where its success swallows the world. I'm more concerned that an economic failure could cause major civil disturbance, ending with a takeover by military hardliners looking to expel the weak corrupt capitalists, return to the pure ways of mao, and make China great through conquest.

The China that Mao controlled was a much different China than today. He controlled a China largely populated by uneducated peasants, and he conducted a few purges to get rid of a few million potential dissenters, while the world turned a blind eye. Today China is much larger educated class that has high expectations of brighter tomorrow. I doubt the military would support a Maoist type purge to stop dissent, but if they did the world would respond in a number of ways (trade embarko, etc.) that China would be forced to respond to, and they know that. They also know that Taiwan has a functional economic model, and it may not be out of the realm of the possible if the CCP had a major crisis that the government of Taiwan could assume control finally uniting the Chinese again, so this may be a reason China is nervous about Taiwan. A lot of economic analysts think China's bubble is going to burst in the next two years, what happens when (and if) that occurs is the million dollar question.

Ray

06-17-2011, 05:09 AM

Shouldn't be looking only at one side of the equation. Sure, countries like the Philippines will run to the US when China gets pushy on the periphery. They'll also quite happily cozy up to the Chinese if they feel like US military aid is les motivated than it was. They'll openly court Chinese investment and business links. It's simplistic to reduce this to "bad bully pushes little guys, who run to heroic big brother for protection". It's more about jostling for position, with everyone in the picture playing multiple games at the same time. We don't want to be pushed around, but we don't want to be played either, and overreacting will be as counterproductive as underreacting.

I have no problem at all with the US sailing a carrier through the China Sea, basing a couple of ships in Singapore, or holding an exercise. All part of the ritual, and generally expected. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we're changing anything, or deterring anything, by doing that.

I don't see any reason to think that China wants to "swallow" the Philippines or Vietnam, which would be an expensive process with significant risk and little gain.

What has to be understood is that it is more important for the US to have allies around the world than little nations and Third World countries to have US as their all.

Small countries have no options. They have to adjust and are forced by the circumstances to align or, if they have been able to manage it, have a loose alliance to protect their interests. The current contenders to align with are China and the US.

The choice is obvious. One would align with the US because the ‘values’ are near similar and because the US is not in the close proximity and so the chance of territorial disputes are negligible. Further, one has to see the historical antecedents. The US was not an imperialist power expanding its territories.

Compare the same parameters with China. The political ‘values’ are most dissimilar. The close proximity leads to territorial claims and that can keep increasing even if some understanding is reached for the initial claims and historically China has been an imperialist power that has a unique method to Sinicize people. The attempts in Tibet and Xinjiang are modern cases in point.

The US does not want to be played around. What makes one feel that it can be played around? Take the example of India (and it not quite a pushover either). India requires Iran gas very urgently and it had good relations with Iran so much so India has participated in industry, business and building Iran’s infrastructure such as the Chahbahar port. Yet, India had to give way because of US pressures. India voted against Iran and has walked out of the Iran – Pakistan – India pipeline project. In short, India has lost a friend in many ways than one. Strategically, whatever little India could have done in pursuing her strategic interest in Afghanistan, and to a great extent in CAR has gone for a toss. So, it is another of the myths that the US can be ‘played around’.

The issue of ‘business and investment’ is overdone. Business and investment will get attracted. come what may, if the environment is conducive. If the environment is not conducive, then no coercion or otherwise can attract anything. A case in point is that China does business with India and vice versa since it is profitable to do so, even though there is a cold hostility.

The positioning of warships in Singapore by the US is hardly a ritual. It is an unfriendly act as far as China is concerned, more so, the warships have been placed in an area considered as an international ‘strategic chokepoint’.

If it were but only a ritual, then why has India not given access to the US to have submarine pens in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands which could allow US dominance over the Straits of Malacca, the Ten Degree channel as also the seaways to Myanmar, where the Chinese are said to have naval facilities?

The US is not changing anything by holding exercises or steaming a aircraft carrier in the proximity of China. It is only being a ‘threat in being’. In other words, a threat and yet not applied.

China does not swallow anyone as if it were a hungry alligator. Notice the subtlety in ‘peacefully’ trying to change the perception that Arunachal Pradesh is ‘South Tibet’ or the ‘friendly’ manner in which she made her claim and annexed the Shaksgam Valley in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The Chinese are a very patient people.

Sun Tzu said:

All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved.

Dayuhan

06-17-2011, 07:42 AM

Small countries have no options. They have to adjust and are forced by the circumstances to align or, if they have been able to manage it, have a loose alliance to protect their interests. The current contenders to align with are China and the US.

Small countries don't have to align with one or the other. They can, and often do, maintain relations with both, and try to get the big powers to compete for their friendship. The large can push and shove; the small have to manipulate.

The choice is obvious. One would align with the US because the ‘values’ are near similar and because the US is not in the close proximity and so the chance of territorial disputes are negligible. Further, one has to see the historical antecedents. The US was not an imperialist power expanding its territories.

Then where does all this talk about the "American Empire" come from? Not that I'm persuaded by that construct, but lots of people are, and lots of people see US domination as a threat as imminent as Chinese aggression.

The US does not want to be played around. What makes one feel that it can be played around? Take the example of India (and it not quite a pushover either). India requires Iran gas very urgently and it had good relations with Iran so much so India has participated in industry, business and building Iran’s infrastructure such as the Chahbahar port. Yet, India had to give way because of US pressures. India voted against Iran and has walked out of the Iran – Pakistan – India pipeline project. In short, India has lost a friend in many ways than one. Strategically, whatever little India could have done in pursuing her strategic interest in Afghanistan, and to a great extent in CAR has gone for a toss. So, it is another of the myths that the US can be ‘played around’.

Aren't the Pakistanis playing the US, and rather effectively? What's the US return on all that investment?

People work the US all the time. Sometimes they try and fail: not so long ago, for example, the Georgian government tried to push the edge with the Russians, assuming they could pull the US in behind them. It didn't work; the US refused to be played. Under other circumstances it might have worked. Telling someone that you're on their side all the time, no matter what happens, just encourages that party to go out and get into trouble.

The positioning of warships in Singapore by the US is hardly a ritual. It is an unfriendly act as far as China is concerned, more so, the warships have been placed in an area considered as an international ‘strategic chokepoint’.

Possibly unfriendly, in a marginal sort of way. They'll live with it, and it won't change their plans.

The Chinese are a very patient people.

The US might do well to emulate that stereotype, though if China's economy falters, as is likely, we may see that a lot of Chinese are less patient than we expected them to be.

Ray

06-17-2011, 08:22 AM

They committed to defend the Philippines against attack. The Spratly Islands are not part of the Philippines, they're disputed territory. The US position, as it typically is in such cases, is that it does not support or oppose any of the competing claims to disputed territory, but strongly supports a negotiated solution.

A Treaty does not mean that it is activated when any of the signatories are attacked. I would reiterate that if one come to a partner’s assistance when only attacked, it would turn out to be a very costly exercise, in men, matériels and finance when compared to armed warning without a war to blow away a crisis.

I again reiterate that the US strongly supports negotiations, but not from a position of weakness. That is why the naval exercises and the position of warship in the strategic chokepoint

Presumably to defend Chinese interests. It would be silly of us to view that purely in light of China/US relations. China has numerous interests that do not involve us at all.

Forewarned is forearmed, but seeing a ghastly threat in anything anyone does is a rather timorous stance, and is likely to get one into trouble. Neither is chest-thumping bluster a terribly viable response anymore, it's likely to get us more of what we don't want.

Of course, as you say it is silly of the US to view the Chinese aircraft carrier it purely in the light of China - US relations. There is no doubt about that. But the US strategist do not seen things in isolation and I daresay they are blind as is being suggested.

Threat Analysis is an ongoing process and it takes into account every acquisition into account and what could be its effect. For instance, one aircraft carrier, is not that material but slot it in the jigsaw of the various acquisitions of their Navy to include submarines etc and you will find that they are well on their way to transform from a Brown water to a Blue Water Navy. And what can their Blue Water navy do for China's power projection? If that is something to be complacent about, then that would be an interesting viewpoint.

I would consider it naive if one believes that China is rapidly modernising her armed forces to include Stealth aircraft and ships for 'peaceful' purposes. Indeed, a Blue Water Navy is not for defending the shores and instead is for offensive action and power projection. It is also worth noting that China does not posses far flung overseas territories that makes it essential to have a Blue Water Navy for defensive purposes.

They do it every year. It's not a big deal, never has been. The Chinese always protest. It'a a bit of a ritual dance and it's been ongoing for ages; mostly nobody notices. it is of course possible that the Chinese timed their incursions to coincide with the exercise; to make it look like they can jerk the chain and elicit a response. Hard to know for sure, but I wouldn't want to assign too much importance to it.

No exercise by any country, scheduled or unscheduled, is taken as a 'ritual', more so, by those who consider such nations as potential adversaries.

Let me give one example. USSR used to follow NATO naval manoeuvres, even though it was a 'ritual', with spy trawlers and used to 'buzz' the NATO ships for reaction. It is obvious that USSR was interested in NATO tactics and state of operational efficiency.

The exercises being now conducted, hot on the heels of the crisis, would be observed closely, even if it was passed off, let us say, manoeuvres aimed to hone anti Terrorist or anti Pirate naval cooperation!

North Korea serves their interests; why would they drop them? It is of course true that the Chinese perception of self-interest is more consistent and longer running than the American; consequence of different political systems. That doesn't mean that Chinese "friendships" are based on anything but perceived self-interest.

By your contention that a country can change its defence treaty obligations as and when desired, North Korea is becoming a nuclear state that is delivery capable. China is a 'peace loving' Nation. Should China not drop them like a 'hot potato' because North Korea is not 'peace loving' as China?

If China's friendship is based on perceived self interest, may I suggest that US Defence Treaties in the Pacific is also based on self interest - a contention you seem to wish away in the case of the US, but readily espouse for China!!

And your comments on Myanmar?

Seems to me that the Pakistanis are ever so quick to get friendly with the Chinese or Russians when hey want something out of the US or are irritated with the US. Don't you think Pakistan sees advantage in being courted by both the US and China, and plays that rivalry to their advantage? It would be strange if they didn't, no?

It appears that you are not updating yourself.

Pakistan is not getting friendly with Chinese or Russia just to get 'something out of the US' or 'getting irritated with the US'.

They are merely keeping all options open in their self interest.

Pakistan, in no way, is playing US against China or China against the US. Where have they played in this fashion. Name one.

Pakistan's equation with the US is WoT. It helps to keep Pakistan afloat financially and militarily. It has nothing to do with Pakistan China relationship.

Pakistan's equation with China is assistance from China to build Pakistan's infrastructure, equip its forces with cheaper military hardware which are effective being US or Russian copies, and act as an ally against India. These interest have no clash with the US interests in Pakistan.

They don't care if it's correct or incorrect, they're only asking if it's in their interests. The morality of it doesn't matter at all. The US has poured billions into Pakistan, despite their role in proliferation, and has supported many "immoral" states over the years. Morality matters not at all in these equations.

So, morality is never a question?

It is perfect for China to circumvent NPT or NNPT and construct two nuclear plants for Pakistan?

If there is no modicum of morality to be followed or be necessary, then why have these treaties?

A threat to the Philippines, or a threat to the Spratly Islands? Two different things.

The pact does not dictate what the response to any given threat or perceived threat must be. That has to be determined at the time of the perceived threat, based on assessment of the perceived threat.

If a threat to Philippines is not a threat to Philippine interest, territorial integrity (as perceived by Philippines) and its security, then what is? Attack on Mindanao?

Earthquakes cause tsunamis.

Earthquake without an ocean cause a tremor!

Little to lose from what? Are you proposing to detach China from the world?

I wouldn't lock China into the "cheap shoddy products" niche. Lots of countries have held that spot and moved out of it, and the Chinese are moving through it rather quickly.

No one is proposing to detach China from the world.

It is for China to make its mark on the world and there is no requirement for others to topple over each other to help China on her way.

In fact, one should topple over each other to save impoverished nations like Burkina Faso and such like nations.

Many countries may have gone the way of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and become what they are today e.g. Japan.

We can await China to grow out of 'cheap, shoddy goods' and then acclaim that she has arrived!

Imposing economic sanctions on Myanmar is like banning a corpse from the dance floor. They have no economy worthy of the name, so the impact is minimal. An economy completely dependent on industrial exports and energy imports, requiring continuous growth to prevent popular unrest, is another animal completely.

Corpse to many, but still surviving!

If it were a corpse, the dirge would have sung.

What one forget is that one compares nations by western standards of requirement for creature comforts and sustenance. Or the PPP. While it is true that it looks abysmal, the resilience and the survival instinct with the basic minimum is immense. Therefore, sanctions only affects the elite and not the real poor and the majority are the real poor.

For instance, 'living under $2 a day' if compared to the purchasing power of $2 in US is not the same as in, say Burkina Faso. $2 possibly can sustain a family since what may appear 'necessities' in the US is considered a 'luxury' in Burkina Faso. And it is not that there is only one breadwinner. The whole family works alarming westerners of 'child labour' etc. Child labour in such country becomes a necessity and more the children more is the family kitty!! A vicious circle, but that is how it works.

Survival. The socialist ship was sinking and everyone could see it.

The socialist ship had sunk long ago. Mao did not feel so.

Many companies from many countries. Potential profit draws companies.

And why are they re-locating?

The US is not in a position to allow, disallow, or assure anyone's prosperity, and "containment" has to be scaled to the level of the threat, not the maximum extension of where a perceived threat might possibly lead under the worst possible circumstances.

Containment is not only military.

A serious contender has to be made to know its station!!

Ray

06-17-2011, 08:57 AM

Small countries don't have to align with one or the other. They can, and often do, maintain relations with both, and try to get the big powers to compete for their friendship. The large can push and shove; the small have to manipulate.

Easier said than done; more so, if the small country falls in the area of interest of large powers.

Chinese proverb - When Big Fish fight, little fish eaten!

Little fish has little option but to align. Alignment also give other advantages beyond the military and so many small nations in the arena of contending big powers join to uplift their nations in addition to the inherent protection that it gains.

Myanmar is surviving because it is an ally of China and does not require to play or manipulate other nations to survive.

Then where does all this talk about the "American Empire" come from? Not that I'm persuaded by that construct, but lots of people are, and lots of people see US domination as a threat as imminent as Chinese aggression.

What American Empire?

Have I used it?

'Neo colonialism' was a Soviet coinage to indicate that smaller allies of the US was bound by US dictates. But would that be an Empire? To some, maybe. To others, it was leadership towards a mutual goal.

By that token, does the UN represent the will of the world?

Or does it represent the will of the Big 5 of the UNSC?

Therefore, one could say that the world is a Big 5 Empire!!!

Aren't the Pakistanis playing the US, and rather effectively? What's the US return on all that investment?

Yes.

But that is on WoT, which is in the interest of the US and ISAF.

If WoT is a success, who reaps the harvest in ideological and policy terms?

Pakistan?

In fact, Pakistan is against the WoT. They have just arrested those who helped the US in the Osama raid.

Therefore, call it weasel-like or otherwise, but Pakistan is extracting its pound of flesh and making hay while the sun shines!

That is the price the US has to pay to win the WoT.

Protecting Freedom and one's way of life is an expensive game!

People work the US all the time. Sometimes they try and fail: not so long ago, for example, the Georgian government tried to push the edge with the Russians, assuming they could pull the US in behind them. It didn't work; the US refused to be played. Under other circumstances it might have worked. Telling someone that you're on their side all the time, no matter what happens, just encourages that party to go out and get into trouble.

Nations do work the US. But it is not that the US is not gaining out of it. If US was not gaining, then the US would not have been out there where people or nations can work them.

The US did not pull Georgia's chestnuts out of the fire because Georgia was not in NATO nor it had any Treaty with the US.

Possibly unfriendly, in a marginal sort of way. They'll live with it, and it won't change their plans.

Their (China's) option to change any plans have been snatched away by the US positioning warships on a permanent basis at Singapore. That is what is called strategic foresight.

The US might do well to emulate that stereotype, though if China's economy falters, as is likely, we may see that a lot of Chinese are less patient than we expected them to be.

If the Chinese economy falters, they can get impatient as much as they like. Their clout will diminish and they will have the status of being a 'has been'.

All salute the rising sun and not the one that has eclipsed!